get_law_structure

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, return format, pagination, or whether the result is a simple index or full text structure. Beyond stating it 'obtiene' (gets), it gives no behavioral details. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, complete sentence that front-loads the primary verb and object. It is concise, with no superfluous information, and every word contributes to meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description provides a minimum viable explanation. It identifies what is returned (index/structure) but lacks details about the structure of the output or any limitations. More context would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'law_id', including a pattern and description, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. However, the description also does not reinforce the connection between the parameter and the structure retrieval, but the baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool retrieves the index/structure of a legal norm, with examples ('títulos de artículos, disposiciones'). It uses a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('norma'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from the similar sibling 'explain_law_structure' (which likely explains rather than retrieves). Thus it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning contexts, exclusions, or relationship to siblings like 'get_law_text_block' or 'explain_law_structure'. No usage conditions or recommendations are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.