法令本文ファイルダウンロード

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior: saving to a temporary file and returning its path. However, it omits details about temp file lifecycle (e.g., cleanup), error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that efficiently packs the action, parameters, file formats, and return behavior without excessive verbosity. It is slightly dense with the API endpoint reference, but every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (temp file path) adequately. However, it lacks mention of error cases, temp file handling after reading, or when to prefer sibling tools, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description reiterates that law_id_or_num_or_revision_id accepts ID/number/revision ID and file_type is the download format, but adds no new meaning beyond the API endpoint path, which is already evident.

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 tool downloads law text in a specified file format (xml/json/html/rtf/docx) and returns the path to a temporary file. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_law_data or search_laws, which are more about structured data or searching.

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 implies usage when a file download is needed, and it provides context on required parameters (law ID/number/revision ID, file type). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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