legis:get

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It accurately describes the retrieval function but does not disclose potential file-writing side effects of the 'save_path' parameter (e.g., saving the document to disk). It also does not describe the return format or error behavior. The note about 'format varies by state' for Länder IDs adds some transparency, but the omission of side effects and output specifics leaves gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, followed by specific ID format guidance. Every part earns its place without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simple retrieval tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the most important context: how to construct and source IDs. The optional save_path is self-documented in the schema. However, it lacks explicit mention of what the tool returns (e.g., law text, metadata) and any error behavior, which could be useful given the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats the id format with an extra example ('stgb/§ 242') and adds 'format varies by state' for Länder. This is a slight enhancement but does not significantly compensate for what the schema already provides. The save_path parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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: 'Retrieve a specific law/norm from German federal or state legislation.' It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('law/norm'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like legis:search by focusing on retrieval of a specific document. The mention of 'id from legis:search' also implicitly differentiates from the search tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to retrieve a specific law/norm when the ID is known. It explains the ID format for BUND ('law/section') and directs users to legis:search for Länder IDs ('id from legis:search results'), effectively telling the agent to use search when the ID is not known. This is clear and actionable.

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