dip:get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns extracted text including Gesetzesbegründung and mentions save_path for saving to a file. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects of file writing, error behavior, or any other operational nuances, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The second sentence provides optional usage hints without redundancy. Every word contributes, achieving excellent conciseness and structure.

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 tool with one required parameter and two optional ones, the description covers the main use case, return content, and optional behaviors (section, save_path). It also gives a high-level return description despite lacking an output schema. It could be more complete by addressing error scenarios, but it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a brief usage note (e.g., 'Use section for partial content') but does not provide significant additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Retrieve full text of a Bundestagsdrucksache by Dokumentnummer' with a concrete example, distinguishing it from search siblings by specifying direct retrieval by ID. It also mentions the specific content returned (including Gesetzesbegründung), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a Dokumentnummer and need full text) and provides guidance on using the section and save_path parameters for partial content or file saving. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like dip:search for searching or other get tools, so exclusions are not fully spelled out.

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