get_process

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds semantic nuances: the meaning of `passed` for non-legislative documents and the list of possible errors. This helps the agent avoid misinterpreting results and understand failure modes.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes meaning: it explains outputs, caveats, alternative tool usage, and error types. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains structured, though the error list adds a bit of length.

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's complexity and lack of output schema, the description compensates well by detailing the return fields (stages, passed, link, ELI), clarifying edge cases, providing an explicit cross-reference to get_act, and listing errors. This is a thorough and self-sufficient description.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (`nr` and `term`), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a precise verb+resource: 'Pełna historia procesu legislacyjnego dla danego druku' and enumerates return contents (stages, adoption status, RCL link, ELI). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_prints and get_print by focusing on the legislative process history.

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 explicitly instructs to use `mcp-isap.get_act` for the current legal status, setting a clear boundary. It also warns that not every print has a process, explaining that `passed=false` does not mean 'rejected' but 'not subject to adoption', which is critical contextual guidance for proper interpretation.

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