legalize_reforms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope ('for a law') and ordering ('newest-first'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response format, or any side effects, though a list operation is implicitly read-only.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word adds value.

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 4 parameters, a required country, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It leaves out that country is required and does not clarify the meaning of reforms/diffs or pagination, leaving an agent with insufficient context to reliably invoke the tool.

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 0% and the description only vaguely maps to parameters via 'for a law', which implies law_id. It does not explain the required country parameter or the limit/offset pagination parameters. This is minimal compensation for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 states 'List reforms (diffs) for a law, newest-first', giving a specific verb and resource with ordering. It is unambiguous about the core action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like legalize_commits or legalize_law_at_commit.

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 says it is 'useful for change tracking', but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as legalize_commits or legalize_law_at_commit. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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