get_interpretation

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: default layer is from local cache (no network), reasoning text limited to 15000 characters, keyword parameters override include parameters. It also explains case_id format acceptance. No contradictions found.

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 a clear header, operational details, and an Args list. It is slightly verbose with inline examples, but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and cached behavior.

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?

Covers main functionality: different query modes, parameter interactions, and caching. However, it omits output format details and error handling. Given the tool complexity (5 params, no output schema), it is largely complete but could improve with return value description.

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 0%, but the description provides semantic meaning for all parameters: explains case_id format with examples, notes that reasoning_keyword overrides include_reasoning, and describes opinions_keyword similarly. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 full text of Constitutional Court interpretations (釋字第 1-813 號) and court rulings (憲判字). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_judgment and search_interpretations by specifying the exact document types and providing case_id format examples.

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?

It explains default cached instant response and describes two modes for reasoning/opinions (full text vs keyword snippet). While it implies usage for retrieving specific interpretations, it does not explicitly contrast with search_interpretations or specify 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.