chain_law_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It discloses the chained workflow (search → three-tier comparison → articles → annexes) but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. The behavior is partially transparent.

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 line with an emoji and key Korean terms. Every part conveys essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 complexity (three parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns, the exact steps of the chain, or how parameters interact. An agent would lack sufficient detail to reliably invoke or interpret the tool.

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 input schema describes two of three parameters (query and articles) with good coverage (67%). The description adds context about the workflow but does not detail the parameters themselves. The baseline is 3 due to partial compensation.

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's purpose: understanding the legal system through an automated chain of law search, three-tier comparison, articles, and annexes. It distinguishes itself from sibling chain tools (e.g., chain_action_basis) by focusing on legal structure exploration.

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 includes '법 구조 질문 시' (when asking about legal structure), implying when to use. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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