get_admin_rule_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves text (a read operation) but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response format is. Given no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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: one sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, the resource, and the prerequisite. Every part is necessary and no words are wasted.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and input. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., what format the text is returned in) and error handling for invalid IDs, making it somewhat incomplete.

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 single parameter 'rule_id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that rule_id is the 'id' from search_admin_rules results, which is valuable context beyond just the parameter name.

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 action (조회/retrieves) and resource (행정규칙 본문/admin rules text). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_law_text and get_guideline_text by specifying the type of legal document. The prerequisite dependency on search_admin_rules is also clearly indicated.

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 explicitly states that the tool requires the 'id' from search_admin_rules results, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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