legal_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: each mode's functionality, required parameters, and specific details like 'LLM 환각 방지' and '한국형 Citator'. It notes potential slowness with maxCitations but does not cover error handling or output format comprehensively.

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 dense but well-structured, listing each mode with its explanation and required parameters. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation between modes, as it currently reads as a long run-on sentence.

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 complexity (4 modes, 11 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete, covering each mode's purpose and required parameters. It mentions output like 'mermaid 그래프 코드 출력' for impact_map. Missing explicit return value descriptions, but overall adequate.

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%, but the description adds significant value by grouping parameters per mode and explaining their roles in context (e.g., 'text' for verify_citations, 'lawName' for applicable_law). This enhances understanding beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 defines the tool as an integrated analysis tool with four distinct modes (verify_citations, cite_check, applicable_law, impact_map), each with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like legal_research and search_decisions by listing the modes and their unique functions.

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 explicit required parameters for each mode (e.g., 'text 필수' for verify_citations, 'caseNumber 필수' for cite_check) and hints at the context of use. However, it does not directly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative sibling tools.

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