compare_old_new

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 states the tool compares old and new versions and highlights changes, but does not mention auth requirements, side effects, data persistence, or error handling. For a read-like operation, this is adequate but lacks detail.

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 two sentences with no extraneous content. The first sentence defines the tool's function, and the second provides usage guidance and links to related tools. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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's single parameter and straightforward comparison task, the description covers the main aspects: what it compares, how changes are highlighted, and a practical example. Though no output schema exists, the description outlines the output format (basic info + list of changed articles). Minimal gap remains.

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?

The single parameter 'mst' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that both old and new mst are accepted and how to obtain them (from search_law or get_law_history). This goes beyond the schema's own description.

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 it compares old and new versions of a law, highlighting changes with `**변경**`. It specifies the target (법제처 lawService · target=oldAndNew) and gives a concrete use case (PIPA tracking). This differentiates it from siblings like get_historical_law and get_law_history.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (tracking changes in frequently amended laws like PIPA) and what to do next (use get_historical_law for full text, get_law_history for other comparisons). It provides clear context and alternatives.

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