get_statute_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Get a list' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the ID format note ('e.g. "12345" or "statute:12345"') adds useful context. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, auth requirements, error conditions, or rate limits, so transparency is only average.

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 purpose sentence plus an argument label with example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core verb and resource. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit usage boundaries or edge-case behavior, but for a straightforward list-retrieval operation, the provided information is sufficient to select and invoke the tool 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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining law_id: 'The ID of the law (e.g. "12345" or "statute:12345")'. This provides meaning, format examples, and acceptable input styles beyond the schema's mere type declaration. It doesn't fully specify constraints or defaults, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 that the tool 'Get a list of attached forms and tables (별표/서식) for a specific statute,' using a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('attached forms and tables'), and a specific scope ('for a specific statute'). This makes it distinct from the sibling search/read tools, which focus on articles, terms, or legal chains.

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: it is used when you need attachments for a specific statute, and it requires a law_id. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool. Lacking explicit when-not-to-use guidance prevents a 5.

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