legal_get_social

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read (implied by 'Get'), describes the payload contents, and adds a real operational constraint — the cvrt-legal 0.6.0+ dependency. However it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or side effects, so coverage of behavioral traits is partial.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the returned content and the version prerequisite. No filler or redundancy; every clause contributes.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return shape (networks, enabled state, profile URLs, rendered preview) and states the plugin version dependency. For a one-parameter read tool this is largely complete, though it omits any mention of the site parameter or error/precondition behavior.

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% for the single 'site' parameter (documented as 'Site id (see list_sites)'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics about the site argument, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 ('Get') and a clearly scoped resource ('social-media section configurator'), then enumerates what it surfaces: networks on offer, which are enabled with their profile URLs, and the rendered preview. This is far more informative than a bare name restatement. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling legal_get_social_modules, but the returned content makes the distinction inferable.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative (e.g., legal_put_social for writes, legal_get_social_modules for the module list). The stated version prerequisite ('Requires cvrt-legal 0.6.0+') is a useful precondition, which lifts it above a bare 2, but routing guidance is only implied.

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