get_alio_regulation_history

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions data source (ALIO attachments) but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. Lacks depth for safe agent invocation.

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?

Single concise Korean sentence. Purpose is front-loaded with '[ALIO] 규정 개정 이력'. Efficient and direct, 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description should provide more context about return structure or use cases. It only hints at output (file names and current version) but lacks completeness expected for a history tool among many siblings.

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 parameter descriptions. Description adds minimal value beyond schema, only implying the tool deals with history. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters sufficiently.

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?

Description clearly states it returns regulation amendment history based on ALIO attachments, specifying previous file names and current version distinction. It distinguishes purpose from siblings like get_alio_regulation (current version) or get_recent_alio_revisions (recent only). However, it could be more precise about what history includes (all revisions?).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_alio_regulation or compare_alio_regulations. Agent must infer context from sibling names alone. No when/why instructions provided.

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