chain_action_basis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a chain comparison but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only or destructive. Significant gaps remain.

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 extremely concise, using a single line with an icon and key phrases. It front-loads the purpose, but some structure and additional detail would improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 chain action tool with no output schema and absent annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on expected output, step outcomes, or how the parallel processing works, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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?

The schema describes the 'query' parameter with an example, but the tool description adds no additional semantics beyond that. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'apiKey' parameter or clarify usage further.

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 provides a basis for actions ('처분근거') involving a sequential comparison of interpretation examples, precedents, and administrative appeals. It distinguishes from siblings by the specific chain steps, though the exact output is not fully clear.

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 mentions it is for questions about permissions/dispositions ('허가/처분 질문 시'), providing implied usage context. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or which sibling tools are alternatives is given.

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