get_regulation_hierarchy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but it only states the purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as data freshness, authorization needs, or limitations. It does not describe what the returned data entails beyond hierarchy types.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. However, it could include more detail 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 tool has one required param, no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameter format or how the hierarchy is returned, making it insufficient for correct agent invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'law_id' parameter beyond its name. No format, constraints, or examples are given, leaving the agent uncertain about how to supply valid input.

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 verb (查询/query), the resource (法规层级关系/hierarchical relationship of laws), and specifies the types of relationships (上位法/相关法/历史版本/废止). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like law_lookup or law_article_search.

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 implies the tool is for querying hierarchy but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provides conditions for use or exclusion. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context.

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