legalize_law_at_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and specifies the temporal scope (at a specific commit SHA), which implies non-mutating behavior. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, error conditions, or whether the SHA must come from legalize_commits, leaving gaps in behavioral 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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the parameters relate, what the response format is, or how this tool relates to siblings like legalize_law_get. The minimal information may be insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description only partially explains the parameters. It references 'git commit SHA' which maps to the 'sha' parameter, but does not explain 'country' or 'law_id'. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage, it does so only for one of three parameters, earning a low score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'law content at a specific git commit SHA', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like legalize_law_get (current law) and legalize_commits (commit history). It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 usage: when you need law content at a particular commit. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The context is clear enough to infer the use case, but it lacks explicit guidance such as 'use legalize_law_get for current law'.

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