build_law_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'versioned' and 'return source-bound entries' but lacks details on side effects, mutability, permissions, or idempotency. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's impact.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is good, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but too brief to be useful.

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 complexity of the tool (6 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'law snapshot' is, what 'run context' means, or how parameters relate. The tool requires much more context to be used correctly.

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 0% and the description provides no information about any of the 6 parameters (4 required). The agent has no assistance in understanding parameter meanings beyond the bare 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 action ('Build') and the resource ('versioned law snapshot'), and mentions the return of 'source-bound entries'. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings, but 'run context' is vague and could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent is left without context on selection criteria.

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