info_corpus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what informational data the tool returns (act count, chunk count, commit, update date) and also instructs the agent to cite the disclaimer. This is sufficient for a read-only status tool, though it does not explicitly state that no mutations occur.

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 two sentences with no redundancy: the first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and output data, and the second explains the intended usage context. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the output fields, gives an explicit use case, and adds the disclaimer instruction. An agent has all it needs to decide when to call this tool and how to present the results.

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 tool has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so the description does not need to clarify any inputs. According to the baseline for parameterless tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing status and freshness of the indexed corpus, including specific outputs: number of acts, number of chunks, commit, and last update date. This domain is distinct from siblings cerca_normativa (search) and leggi_atto (read), so an agent can easily tell it apart.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: to tell the user how up-to-date and broad the normative base supporting the answer is, and to cite the disclaimer. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the use case is clearly described and the tool's scope is obvious from the context.

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