Naviga Archivio BDP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently implies a read-only navigation action. It adds the hierarchical structure context, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior such as default filters, pagination, or how the tool responds when parameters are omitted. With the read-only aspect covered by annotations, the added value is moderate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise, directly to the point, and free of redundant words, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain 'target' and 'max_results', provide usage context, or indicate expected return values. The hierarchy hint is helpful but insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly across scenarios.

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 has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains five of the seven parameters by outlining the hierarchy (Distretto → Ufficio → Materia → Anno → Mese), but it omits 'target' (provvedimento/abstract) and 'max_results', leaving their roles unclear. Partial compensation warrants a midpoint score.

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 states a specific verb ('Naviga') and resource ('struttura gerarchica dell'archivio BDP') with the exact hierarchy path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerca_provvedimenti (search) and leggi_dettaglio_provvedimento (read detail), as it focuses on hierarchical navigation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference the sibling tools. The agent is left with only the raw hierarchy path.

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