get_annexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool extracts content, with no mention of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or parameter interactions. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient.

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, with two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and provides a key usage hint without any unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description lacks critical details about return format, error scenarios, and parameter conflict resolution. It does not fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly in all contexts.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some extra meaning for lawName (pattern with '별표N') and a general hint about annexes containing amounts/standards. However, it does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving annexes and forms (별표/서식) with a specific verb ('조회' means inquiry). It provides a usage pattern (lawName+'별표N'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_alio_annexes or get_law_text, which may overlap in functionality.

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 hints at when annexes contain amounts/standards but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 80 sibling tools, an agent needs clear criteria for selection, which is absent.

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