get_law_version

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that it returns JSON and may raise exceptions, but does not indicate if it's read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects.

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 concise with a single sentence plus organized Args/Returns/Raises sections. It is well-structured but could include more details without becoming verbose.

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 parameter set and existence of output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what '資訊' includes or differentiate from related tools like get_law_content.

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 100% and the parameter description in Args repeats the schema description. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 it retrieves specific law version information using the verb '取得' and resource '特定法律版本資訊'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_law_versions and get_law_content.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about when to choose get_law_version over other law-related tools.

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