legis:toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions output is 'compact list' and is lighter than 'legis:get', but lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether filtering parameters ('from', 'to') are supported. The description is functional but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that first declare the purpose and result, then provide key ID usage details. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with critical information. No unnecessary fluff.

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 TOC retrieval tool with comprehensive schema, the description covers core intent and distinguishes from siblings. It lacks mention of output format details but that is partially covered by 'compact list'. Given no output schema, the description is adequate but could hint at structure more.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description primarily repeats schema info for 'id' and adds no new meaning beyond stating the output is compact. It does not clarify the effects of 'from', 'to', or 'depth' beyond schema definitions, so it adds minimal value over the schema.

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 retrieves a table of contents with a compact list of section numbers and headings. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'legis:get' by being 'much lighter' for navigating large laws, and provides specific ID format guidance for BUND and Länder.

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 recommends using this tool over 'legis:get' for navigating large laws, giving clear context for its lighter nature. It also explains how to form the 'id' parameter based on jurisdiction. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'legis:search'.

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