get_api_code_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently frames the tool as a safe, read-only guide retrieval operation using '반환합니다' and explains the content domain. Since there are no parameters, no mutation, and the output schema exists, the description sufficiently discloses the tool's behavior without omitting critical side effects.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second states when an LLM should use it. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter reference guide tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It explains the content of the guide, its relationship to call_api_raw, and the intended invocation timing. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and when to call this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on purpose and usage rather than inventing unnecessary parameter detail.

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 that the tool returns a guide for code values commonly used in the National Assembly API, with concrete examples such as 대수 and 처리상태. It also distinguishes itself from call_api_raw by framing itself as the pre-call reference for deciding parameter values, so an agent can identify its role among the sibling tools.

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 explicitly says to consult this tool before calling call_api_raw when determining parameter values. This gives a clear and actionable usage trigger. It does not enumerate exclusions relative to other reference-type siblings like get_api_spec, but the primary use case is well specified.

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