select_basis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the 'without over-citing' constraint, but it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what return format to expect, or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool that presumably analyzes case data.

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, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the action verb. There is no redundancy or unnecessary content, making it highly efficient for its length.

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 that the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the input format, expected behavior, or return value, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 single parameter 'case_json' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it at all. The description fails to explain what 'case_json' should contain or how it should be structured, leaving the agent without sufficient information to construct a valid request.

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 the tool's function: selecting applicable articles based on rights and facts, with the added constraint of avoiding over-citation. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'law_articles' or 'escalation_basis'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be invoked or any conditions that would favor it over sibling tools.

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