statute_outline

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds a valuable negative scope claim (no body text is returned) that the annotations do not provide. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/size parameters, which limits it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the four view modes in compact parenthetical form, ending with the sibling hand-off. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical enum glosses make it slightly heavy for a single 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema and only 56% schema description coverage, the description is expected to carry more. It adequately explains the view modes and the body-text exclusion, but leaves the identifier parameters (mst, lawId, article) and paging semantics unexplained, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 coverage is only 56%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It does gloss the four view values meaningfully (목차, 상하위 법령·행정규칙·자치법규 수, 위임 트리, 관련 법령), which maps to the view enum, but mst, lawId, article, delegationKind, page and size receive no explanation.

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 (법령 구조 요약) and enumerates the four output shapes (toc, hierarchy, delegation, related). It also draws an explicit boundary against the sibling article_get by saying body text is not included, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to article_get when the body text is needed, which is real when-to-use guidance against an alternative. It does not say when to prefer this over statute_find or which of the four views to pick in a given situation, so it stops short of full coverage.

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