legal_get_generator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the shape of the returned state (active flag, library loaded, ticked modules/options/kept custom sections, sections written) plus a runtime prerequisite (cvrt-legal 0.7.0+). It omits any auth/permission or read-only assurance, but the return-structure disclosure is genuinely useful given there is no output schema.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that puts the operation and its return contents first and the version prerequisite last. The parenthetical enumeration is information-dense rather than padding, though the sentence is somewhat crammed.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context and a version requirement. It is nearly complete, with only the sibling disambiguation and any permission/read-only notes left unaddressed.

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 both parameters (site, doc) and the doc enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail about the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a generated document's state') and enumerates what that state contains (active, library loaded, selection, sections written), which is far more informative than the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like legal_get_document, legal_render_document, or legal_get_generator_library, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 implies read usage ('Get ... state') but never says when to call this versus legal_get_document, legal_get_generator_library, or legal_render_document. No exclusions or prerequisite workflow (e.g., after legal_put_generator) are given, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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