get_annexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('조회') without mentioning destructive actions. However, it lacks explicit behavioral details like auth requirements, rate limits, or safety guarantees. Adequate but minimal.

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 — a single sentence with two brief notes. Every word adds value and is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain return values, which would be helpful. However, it covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and typical use cases well. For a simple query tool, it is fairly 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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains the practical usage of combining lawName with '별표N' for direct annex specification and notes that amounts/standards are often in annexes. This enhances understanding.

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 purpose: querying annexes/forms (별표/서식조회). It specifies the resource (lawName+'별표N') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_law_text (main text) and search_law (law search).

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to extract annex content, especially for amounts/standards) and hints at usage patterns (lawName+'별표N'). However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the sibling context compensates.

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