lawink_precedent_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the relationship types but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, or if the results are direct only or include nested objects. The depth and structure of the response are unclear.

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: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and the required parameter. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema and a single parameter, the description should explain the return format (e.g., list of objects with relation types and target IDs) and error handling. The current description only hints at the content without specifying the structure.

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 coverage, the description should add meaning. It mentions 'precedent_id=판례 UUID' but does not explain how to obtain the UUID or its format. No description of other possible parameters or optional filters, even though only one exists.

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 retrieves all ontology relationships (citations, similar precedents, references, event type, court) for a specific precedent. It identifies the required parameter 'precedent_id' and its format. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'lawink_ontology_graph' which may also retrieve relations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'lawink_precedent_semantic_search' or 'lawink_ontology_graph'. The context implies usage for a single precedent's relations, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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