summarize_precedent

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 does not mention whether summarization is performed server-side (e.g., via API call), any rate limits, or that the apiKey parameter is needed for authentication. The description is silent on destructive or side effects.

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 very concise (one short sentence) but lacks structure. It is front-loaded but omits important details. Every sentence earns its place, but more context could be added without significant length.

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, so the description should at least indicate the return format. It does not mention whether the summary is plain text, structured, or includes metadata. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete.

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 all parameters described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already clear. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '[판례] 판례 요약 생성' clearly states the tool generates a summary of a precedent. The verb 'summarize' and resource 'precedent' are specific, but it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like extract_precedent_keywords or search_precedents.

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 versus alternatives such as 'extract_precedent_keywords' or 'get_precedent_text'. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for invoking the tool.

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