get_law_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool retrieves the structure but omits behavioral details such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format (e.g., tree vs list).

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, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could include more details without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format or structure. The agent has no information about what the response contains beyond '편·장·절'. Additionally, with three optional parameters, guidance on which to use is missing.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (mst, lawId, apiKey). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as which parameter is preferred or how they interact, which is acceptable given high schema coverage.

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 retrieves the hierarchical table of contents structure (편·장·절) of a law, specifically for understanding internal structure. It uses a specific verb (조회) and resource (법령 목차 구조), distinguishing it from siblings like get_law_text or get_article_detail.

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 implies usage 'for understanding internal structure' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_law_system_tree. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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