get_interpretation

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: default fields from local cache (fast), reasoning/opinions have full-text and keyword modes, and reasoning_keyword overrides include_reasoning. It also mentions a 15000-character limit. However, it does not explicitly state whether reasoning/opinions require network access.

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 default mode, reasoning/opinions, case_id format, and parameter details. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: parameter behavior, caching, and case_id format. It lacks explicit output format details, but the tool's purpose implies returning the interpretation text. Generally sufficient.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains case_id formats (multiple accepted variants), the override behavior of reasoning_keyword and opinions_keyword, and the character limit for include_reasoning. With 0% schema coverage, this is essential and well-done.

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 judicial interpretations or constitutional court decisions, specifying the range (釋字第1-813號 or 憲法法庭裁判) and caching behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_interpretations, which imply search functionality.

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 explains when to use the tool (retrieve specific known decisions) and provides formatting examples for case_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_interpretations for when a search would be more appropriate, leaving some ambiguity.

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