sg_list_acts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by explaining pagination and the limitation of no keyword search API, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.

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 immediately communicates the purpose and key constraint. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured with minimal expansion.

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 the presence of a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and informative annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and context. The limitation about keyword search is noted, making it sufficiently complete for a list 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions pagination but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline without exceeding.

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 browses Singapore's current Acts, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions pagination and the limitation of no keyword search API, which distinguishes it from siblings like sg_get_full_text and sg_get_provision.

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 clear context by noting pagination and the absence of a keyword search API, implicitly advising when to use this tool (for browsing) and avoiding search use cases. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or direct sibling comparisons.

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