leggi_atto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Legge'), that it sources from an index, that it can return a whole act or a single article, and that urn is preferred over path. It stops short of explaining error behavior or response format, which is a minor gap for a retrieval tool.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information: the object being read, the identification methods, the article filter, and the recommended workflow.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the selector parameters and the workflow with the key sibling. It could add what happens when no matching act is found or what the returned text looks like, but the core calling context is well covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines urn as the preferred identifier, path as an alternative, and articolo as an optional filter that restricts output to a single article. It adds semantics that the bare schema does not provide, though it leaves details like value formats implied.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Legge il testo integrale di un atto, o di un suo singolo articolo, dall'indice.' It makes clear this tool reads full legal text, and it distinguishes itself from cerca_normativa by defining the workflow: cerca_normativa finds the act, this tool reads it.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Usalo per leggere il testo completo dopo che cerca_normativa ha individuato l'atto rilevante.' It also frames urn as the preferred identifier because it is returned by cerca_normativa, giving concrete routing guidance.

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