get_judgment_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return dict structure (always includes judgment_id and url; additionally path, size_bytes, cached when downloaded) and hints at conditional behavior via save_to parameter. However, it omits details on error handling, authentication, or expiration of URLs.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and perfectly front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity, no output schema, and 100% param coverage, the description adequately covers return values and conditional download behavior. It is missing only minor details like error responses or concurrency guarantees, but is still reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only noting that judgment_id comes from search_judgments and implicitly repeating save_to behavior. It does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 tool's action ('取得裁判書 PDF 連結' - get judgment PDF link) and resource ('裁判書 PDF'). It also mentions the optional download capability, differentiating it from siblings that likely deal with text or legal terms.

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 provides context that the 'judgment_id' can be obtained from 'search_judgments', implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_judgment' or when not to use it, lacking clear usage boundaries.

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