특정 일자 시점 법령 본문

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a read-only operation, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds context on the internal workflow (git log to find the commit, optionally git show to fetch content), which explains what the tool does under the hood. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases like invalid dates, missing commits, or how maxChars affects output, which would add further transparency.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core operation, though it leans on git jargon that may reduce clarity for some users. Overall, it is concise and avoids redundancy, earning a high but not perfect score due to the technical phrasing.

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?

The tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params, 3 required), so the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns and when to use it. It only describes the internal git steps and does not mention return values, error behavior, or the practical difference between includeContent true/false. This leaves the agent underinformed for effective 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?

The input schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions, including date, lawDir, fileName, and maxChars. The tool description adds a bit of semantic value by implying that 'date' is used for the commit lookup and that content retrieval is optional (i.e., includeContent). However, it does not systematically explain each parameter, and the coverage is moderate, so the description only partially compensates for the gaps.

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 explains a specific action: finding the commit before a given date and optionally retrieving the content at that time. It identifies the resource (law file at a specific date) and the operation, which is more than a tautology. However, it uses git implementation details rather than a clear functional statement like 'retrieve the text of a law file as of a specific date,' and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like kr_read_file.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for historical/dated lookups, nor does it name kr_read_file or kr_git_log as alternatives. The only implicit hint is the date parameter and the phrase '당시 본문' (text at that time), but no explicit when/when-not context is given.

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