법령 폴더 목록

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is safe for reads. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the result is sorted and limited to immediate subdirectories (직계 하위). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it omits details like error handling or hidden files.

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, clear sentence in Korean that immediately states the return type and scope. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly concise and efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

For a simple listing tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information about what is returned (sorted folder names) and the scope (direct children of kr/). It could mention the exact format (e.g., array) but this is implied by '디렉터리 이름을 반환합니다'. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not invent parameter details. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description is adequate.

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 returns sorted names of direct sub-law directories under 'kr/'. It specifies the verb '반환합니다' (returns), the resource '법령 디렉터리 이름' (law directory names), and the scope 'kr/ 직계 하위' (immediate subdirectories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kr_read_file or kr_diff, which operate on file contents or changes.

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 should be used to list law categories, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like kr_search or kr_file_at_date. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the usage context to inference rather than direct guidance.

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