list_alio_regulations

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

The description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. No mention of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on errors. Annotations are absent, so the description does not complement them.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and parameter guidance without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the ALIO prefix and main action.

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 exists, and the description does not explain the structure of the returned list (e.g., what fields are included). For a list tool, the agent would benefit from knowing if results include titles, IDs, or dates. The description is too sparse for complete understanding.

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 context by specifying the types of regulations (정관·규정·지침) and that institution accepts partial names or codes, but this information is also present in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for titleFilter or max.

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 that the tool lists internal regulations of a specific public institution, including types like articles of incorporation, regulations, and guidelines. It also explains the institution parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like search_alio_regulation_text.

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 versus alternatives such as search_alio_regulation_text or get_alio_regulation. The description only implies usage for obtaining a list by institution, without mentioning exclusion criteria or alternative scenarios.

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