get_law_system_tree

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function and purpose, without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output characteristics. For a tool querying a hierarchy, more transparency is needed.

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 short sentences with a clear prefix ('[체계]'). Efficiently conveys purpose and use case. No redundant information.

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 (4 optional parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is too minimal. It lacks explanation of output format or how it differs from similar tools like get_law_tree. More detail is needed for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline is 3. It does not explain how parameters interact or are used in the query.

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 queries the system hierarchy (superior, subordinate, related statutes) and is for understanding delegation relationships. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_law_tree and get_related_laws by specifying the delegation focus.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_law_tree, get_related_laws, or get_delegated_laws. The description only states its purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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