chain_amendment_track

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose safety aspects (read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs (apiKey), rate limits, or side effects. The tool likely reads data, but this is not confirmed.

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 brief and structured with key points, using symbols for emphasis. It is efficient but may be cryptic for non-Korean speakers, and a bit more clarity would improve it.

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?

The description lacks detail on what the tool returns (e.g., format, content of the amendment chain) and does not specify expected behavior for different parameter inputs. With no output schema, more elaboration is needed.

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 75% with descriptions for query, mst, and lawId. The tool description adds context that the query is for amendment tracking, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 indicates the tool tracks amendments with old/new comparison and article history, distinguishing it from sibling chain tools like chain_action_basis. However, it could be more explicit about what the tool returns (e.g., a chain of amendment events).

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 use for amendment/change questions but offers no guidance on when to use alternatives among the many chain tools. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is provided.

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