analyze_alio_regulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies data, or any permission requirements. It only describes the analysis scope, missing important behavioral traits.

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 Korean sentence that conveys the key functions and a usage pointer. It is efficient and front-loaded, though a bit dense.

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 provides a decent overview but lacks detail on output format, result interpretation, and safety. It points to a sibling for deeper analysis, which helps, but the tool is still missing some context for an agent to fully understand its behavior.

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 high (80%). The description implies the tool identifies regulations by institution and regId/title and configures TOC display, but does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema 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 it analyzes regulation metadata, structure, and table of contents, using specific terms like 분류/제정/개정 and 조문 목차. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool analyze_document by noting deep risk analysis should go there.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for metadata and structure analysis) and when to use an alternative (analyze_document for deep risk analysis). However, it does not list other alternatives or exclusions.

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