it_list_codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds meaningful context: the tool is a 'curated, verified dictionary' with specific legal codes and provides canonical URNs for further use. It omits details like sorting or full output structure, but the output schema covers those.

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 exactly two sentences with no fluff. The first states the core function, the second enriches with examples and usage direction. Every sentence earns its place, and it is easily parsable.

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 zero-parameter list tool with a provided output schema and read-only annotations, this description is complete. It covers what is listed, the curated nature, and how the output should be used. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics beyond the schema. The mention of feeding URNs is about output behavior, not inputs. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately frames the tool's role in the workflow.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'major Italian codes and consolidated acts' and the distinguishing output 'canonical URN'. Concrete examples (Codice civile/penale, Costituzione, etc.) further clarify the scope and differentiate it from sibling tools like it_case_search or it_cassazione_search.

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 explicitly directs the agent to feed the output URNs to it_get_act/it_get_text, providing an actionable downstream workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like it_resolve, but the intended usage is clear for a zero-parameter list tool.

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