search_taiwan_laws即時查詢法務部全國法規資料庫，回傳官方網址與相關條文。可附修法沿革。回答時必須附上 source_url，並提醒使用者核對最新版本。與其他法規檢索途徑併用時，請以 pcode／法律編號合併去重；無官方識別碼的候選結果不得作為引用依據。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | 略過邊緣快取，強制向官方資料庫取得最新內容（例如剛公布的修正條文） | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | 法規名稱或法律爭點，例如：個人資料保護法 蒐集。支援常見簡稱（勞基法、個資法…） | |
| article_number | No | 可選條號，例如 19 或 247-1 | |
| include_history | No | 附上修法沿革（歷次公布/修正紀錄，來自本地官方資料快照） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the external data source, return content, and the requirement to include source_url and remind users to verify the latest version. It doesn't state whether it's read-only, authentication needs, or cache behavior (though the fresh parameter is in the schema).
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?
Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the main purpose, return values, and critical usage rules. It omits details like limit behavior or error cases, but is adequate for a search tool with a well-described schema.
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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions '可附修法沿革' which aligns with include_history, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. The limit parameter lacks description in both the schema and the description.
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?
Description clearly specifies the verb '查詢' (query), resource '法務部全國法規資料庫' (MOJ national law database), and output ('回傳官方網址與相關條文'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing real-time official data and requiring source_url/dedup rules.
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?
Provides implicit usage context: '與其他法規檢索途徑併用時' indicates this is one of several legal search tools and instructs merging/dedup by pcode. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct legal source or action: laws, regulations, interpretations, judgments, MOJ documents, bills, legislative history, and intent analysis. Even similar tools like search_taiwan_laws vs search_taiwan_regulations are clearly separated by scope (full-text vs name-only) and descriptions provide sufficient boundary definitions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a domain prefix (taiwan or moj). The verbs are limited to get, search, and analyze, and the object nouns are unambiguous (e.g., interpretations, judgments, laws, regulations, bills). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
14 tools is well-scoped for a comprehensive Taiwan legal research server, covering search, retrieval, citation extraction, intent routing, and legislative tracking. Each tool has a clear purpose and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of legal research: finding and retrieving laws, regulations, interpretations, judgments, and bills; obtaining legislative history and versions; converting law names to PCODEs; analyzing user intent; and even extracting citations. No obvious gaps that would block an agent's legal research workflow.