get_plenary_agenda

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

The description discloses the read-only nature by mentioning it retrieves information, and explains pagination behavior via has_more. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or mention any authentication requirements, though these are implied.

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 well-structured with sections for Korean/English, usage, args, and returns. It is concise but includes bilingual repetition, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 existence of an output schema, the description lists return fields and pagination details. However, it does not cover error scenarios or prerequisites, 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter (assembly as required, session as optional filter, page and page_size with defaults). It adds context like 대수 and 회기 번호, but could provide more detail on valid formats.

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 retrieves bills on the plenary session agenda ("Get bills placed on the plenary session agenda") and distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_pending_bills by noting that pending bills are in committee while plenary agenda bills are ready for floor vote.

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 when to use ("To see what bills are scheduled for the next plenary vote") and how it complements get_pending_bills, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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