xem_an_le

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses truncation behavior, the option for full text via day_du, and handling of multiple illustrative judgments. This covers key behavioral traits, though it could mention any side effects or prerequisites (e.g., authentication).

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, using bullet points and brief explanations. It efficiently communicates key points without unnecessary verbosity. Could be slightly more structured, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers input identification, parameter usage, and output behavior for multiple results. However, it lacks details about the output format for single results (e.g., whether full text is returned directly) and exact character limits for truncation. Fairly complete for a simple tool but has gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'dinh_danh' parameter by giving examples of valid identifiers (official numbers vs doc_name) and clarifies the 'day_du' parameter's effect. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles, though exact format rules could be more precise.

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 is for viewing full text of a precedent/judgment. It distinguishes between official precedents and illustrative judgments based on input format, and mentions behavior when multiple results are found. This is specific and leaves no ambiguity.

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 provides guidance on how to format input identifiers and notes the default truncation behavior with the day_du parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'tra_an_le' or 'liet_ke_an_le', nor does it say when not to use this tool. Some context provided, but lacks comparative guidance.

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