ris:toc

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that save_path exists and what its absence/presence does (e.g., whether the TOC is saved to a file or returned). The read-only nature is implied but not stated, and there is no mention of permissions, errors, or output format.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds necessary context: what it does, a troubleshooting tip, and parameter usage requirements. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the primary workflow and parameter nuances, but it entirely omits the save_path parameter, which is part of the schema. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this omission leaves a notable gap in understanding the tool's full behavior. It's adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example for the 'law' parameter ('Urheberrechtsgesetz' vs 'UrhG'), and by explicitly clarifying the dependency between application and bundesland. This helps disambiguate parameter usage beyond 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's purpose: retrieving the table of contents (with §§ and headings) for an Austrian consolidated law. It explicitly positions this as a precursor to ris:get_norm, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve individual norms or 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?

It provides concrete usage guidance, such as using the full law title when an abbreviation fails, and explains when to set application to 'bundesrecht' vs 'landesrecht' (the latter requiring 'bundesland'). It implies the workflow (get TOC then read with ris:get_norm) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions.

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