Hent atom fra Tua

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds the shape of what is returned (provenance, related atoms, links, versions) and the fallback that S is derived from L when M is missing, which is useful, but it discloses nothing about permissions, cost, or limits beyond that.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its output contents, then the level strategy, then version selection — each sentence carries distinct information. The one long enumeration sentence is dense but each listed item is a genuine return artifact, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly (provenance, related atoms, map address, links, versions) while explaining level and version semantics. It is complete enough to call correctly, with the only gap being any note on payload size or truncation for L.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real strategy beyond the schema: the M-first / L-only-when-needed ordering and the note that a missing M yields the start of L. The `version` behavior (prior version by name) is also echoed clearly, though no new syntax details are added.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (hent ett atom) and enumerates exactly what comes back: provenance, related atoms, map address, open-in links, and prior versions. It also names the sibling tools (tua_search/tua_list) as the source of the id, so an agent can tell it apart from the list/search tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit selection guidance for the level parameter: fetch M first, use L (everything) only when the answer requires it, and describes how `version` retrieves a prior version. It routes the agent to tua_search/tua_list for obtaining the id, but does not state an explicit when-not-to-use case beyond the level heuristic.

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