Compare a specific article from two Korean public institution regulations. Input two regulations and an article number to view them side-by-side and identify differences.
[ALIO] 두 규정의 같은 조문(예: 제15조) 1:1 정밀 비교. compare_alio_regulations 의 토픽 N:N 과 달리 지정한 두 규정 의 같은 조문 나란히 출력.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pair | Yes | 비교할 두 규정 — [{institution, regId|title}, {...}] | |
| article | Yes | 비교할 조문 (예: '제15조', '제10조의2') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the entire burden. It only mentions '1:1 precise comparison' and 'side-by-side output' but does not disclose whether it's read-only, required permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool without annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, immediately followed by differentiation from sibling. No wasted words.
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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema). The description mentions side-by-side output but lacks details on format, error handling, or prerequisites. Minimally adequate for simple use, but leaves gaps.
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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the concept of same-article comparison. Baseline of 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 explicitly states it compares the same article (e.g., Article 15) of two regulations precisely (1:1), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool compare_alio_regulations which does N:N topic comparison.
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?
It clearly contrasts with compare_alio_regulations, indicating when to use this tool (for specific article comparison) versus the sibling (for topic-based comparison), giving explicit contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.