법령 전역 검색

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds the search scope (kr/**/*.md) and the note about using ripgrep if available, which is some behavioral context, but does not disclose output format, pagination, or other potential side effects. This is a minimal addition.

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 includes the core purpose and a key behavioral detail (ripgrep). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It conveys the core search behavior and scope, but does not clarify the return format beyond a grep analogy. The schema covers parameter details, but the lack of an output schema and richer description leaves some uncertainty for the agent.

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 80%, leaving only maxResults without a description. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema, though it does imply recursive search similar to grep -r. The schema already provides sufficient detail for most parameters.

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 searches for strings in kr/**/*.md, with a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as kr_read_file, kr_list_laws, and kr_diff, all of which have different purposes.

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 usage as a full-text search over Korean law markdown files, similar to grep -r. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tools are obviously different in function.

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