gb_get_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it fetches metadata from legislation.gov.uk by reference, but offers no additional behavioral context such as rate limits or response format. This is a minimal but non-contradictory addition, deserving a middle score.

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 11-word sentence that starts with the verb 'Fetch' and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter tool with a detailed schema and informative annotations plus an output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and invocation. It does not explicitly discuss alternative tools or edge cases, but these are covered in other dimensions.

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 input schema's reference parameter is thoroughly described with example formats and optional date suffix, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description's mention of 'by reference' adds no new meaning beyond this. Thus the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Fetch UK legislation metadata from legislation.gov.uk by reference' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like gb_search and gb_get_text by emphasizing 'metadata' and 'by reference', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 such as gb_search or gb_get_text. It neither mentions exclusions nor suggests related tools for different needs, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and schema.

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