legal_get_generator_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses a version prerequisite (cvrt-legal 0.7.0+) and that the plugin ships no bundled texts, so an agent can anticipate an empty library. It does not describe the return shape or pagination, leaving gaps for a read tool with no annotations.

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 tight sentence with a clarifying parenthetical, front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler, though the version constraint is crammed onto the end rather than structured.

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 two-param read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resource, source path, and version requirement. It stops short of explaining what the returned library looks like or how the agent should consume it, leaving a modest gap.

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 params (site, doc) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and BFSG note. The description adds only the general concept of a 'generated document', 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 the imported text library of a generated document') and clarifies the source of the texts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling legal_put_generator_library, but the get/put pairing and the 'generated document' scope make the intent clear.

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 gives useful context (texts come from websites/bin/legal-v4/privacy, the plugin ships none, requires cvrt-legal 0.7.0+) which implies when the tool returns content versus nothing. However, it never states when to use this versus legal_get_generator or the other legal_get_* readers, so usage is only implied.

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