get_rule_content

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses output format (markdown) and default behavior (history_id omitted yields latest). It adds value beyond the input schema by explaining the result type and filter capabilities.

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 concise sentence in Korean that efficiently conveys the primary function, default behavior, and filter options. Every word 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 the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (markdown) and filtering parameters. It covers essential behavioral traits for a content retrieval tool, though more detail on response structure could be helpful.

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's mention of filters and default history_id behavior mostly repeats what is already in the schema descriptions, adding no significant new meaning.

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 retrieves regulation body content in markdown format, uses a specific verb (retrieve), and distinguishes from siblings like get_rule_toc (table of contents) and list_rule_history (history list).

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 on when to omit history_id (defaults to latest) and mentions supported filters (article/chapter/grep). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like get_rule_toc or search_rule, though sibling tool names give context.

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