annex_get

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden and does add real value: it discloses the automatic fallback to same-family 시행령/시행규칙 annexes and the shape of the response (total count, page, file links). It still omits pagination/truncation behavior (maxBytes, part).

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted filler. Efficient, though it packs the fallback and return-shape information tightly without structuring them.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the fallback logic and return fields but leaves the key identifier-selection and pagination parameters unexplained. An agent could still call it, but not confidently choose among name/lawId/mst.

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?

12 parameters with only 58% schema description coverage, and the description does not disambiguate the identifiers (mst vs lawId vs name), asOf, part, or maxBytes. It hints at page and file links but adds no real meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: fetches the list and body of a statute's annexes/forms (별표·서식), which is clearly distinct from article_get or statute_outline. It also states the scope of the fallback behavior. However, it never names a sibling tool to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource type; there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or comparison against article_get/statute_outline. The fallback condition (no annex in the statute body) is a useful trigger but is about internal behavior, not tool selection.

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