법령 파일 현재 내용

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds useful context: UTF-8 encoding and the working-tree scope. However, it claims to read the 'full text' (전문) while the schema allows truncation via maxChars, a behavioral trait not disclosed in the description. This is not a contradiction with annotations but is an omission.

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, focused sentence that includes the core operation and a helpful README reference ('cat example'). It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity, the readOnlyHint annotation, and complete parameter schema, the description covers the essential purpose and mode (UTF-8, working tree). It falls slightly short by not mentioning the truncation behavior tied to maxChars, but the schema already explains that, so the gap is minor.

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 100%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., lawDir, fileName enum, maxChars with default and maximum). The description only repeats the placeholders {lawDir}/{fileName}, adding minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads the full text of a specified file from the working tree, with a specific verb ('읽습니다') and resource (kr/{lawDir}/{fileName}). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing '워킹 트리' (current content), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kr_file_at_date. The working-tree reference implies current content, but the description lacks any when/when-not statements or mention of sibling tools.

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