get_law_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the output (headers with article ranges and counts) and contrasts with sibling tools. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or non-destructive nature, the context implies it's a safe retrieval operation.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the core purpose. It contains multiple pieces of information but avoids redundancy. The structure is logical: purpose, use case, differentiation, next steps.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return format (header article ranges and counts). It also covers prerequisites, limitations, and differentiation from siblings. This is complete for a non-mutating tree tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context (mst from search_law, efYd for time-specific tree) but does not significantly extend beyond the schema descriptions. Parameter semantics are adequate but not enriched.

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 retrieves a tree of law structure (편, 장, 절, 관) with article ranges and counts, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_law_text and get_law_system_tree. The verb 'retrieve tree' and resource 'law internal structure' are specific.

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 specifies when to use (large laws like PIPA for LLM navigation), what not to use (full text from get_law_text, system tree from get_law_system_tree), and suggests next steps (get_law_text for full text, compare_articles for specific articles). This provides explicit guidance.

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