get_judgment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns full content including case info and text, which implies a read-only retrieval operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The basic nature of a get tool allows a score of 3.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part is essential: verb, resource, and output scope.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects). The description explains the return value as '包含案件資訊與全文' but does not detail structure or fields. Without an output schema, the description should provide more specificity, but the basic information is present.

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 100% (one parameter with a clear description and format example). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per rubric, baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 uses specific verb+resource: '取得單一裁判書的完整內容' (get full content of a single judgment). It clearly distinguishes from siblings: 'single' contrasts with search_judgments (multiple), and '完整內容' differs from get_judgment_pdf (PDF) and lookup_legal_term (term lookup).

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 implies usage when needing full content for a specific judgment. The schema parameter description explicitly states the judgment_id comes from search_judgments, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternatives.

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