Return the chapter/section/article outline of one Taiwan law. Useful for orienting in a large statute before drilling into specific articles with get_article_by_number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| law_name | Yes | Exact law name in Traditional Chinese, e.g. "公司法". Use search_law_titles first if you only have a partial or informal name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the returned structure (chapter/section/article outline). That is genuinely useful given no output schema exists, though it says nothing about size limits or depth.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first states the output, the second states the use case and the follow-up tool. Every clause earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies what annotations cannot: the shape of the result. Minor gaps around output size or nesting depth remain, but an agent has enough to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the Traditional Chinese format and the search_law_titles fallback. The description adds nothing beyond the schema here, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Return the chapter/section/article outline of one Taiwan law'), which is exactly distinguishable from siblings like get_law_details and get_article_by_number. The scope ('one Taiwan law') is 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?
Provides clear usage context ('orienting in a large statute') and names the alternative workflow, get_article_by_number, for drilling down. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use case, but the routing to a sibling is unambiguous.
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.
