get_statute_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Get a list' implying a read operation, but fails to disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output characteristics. The presence of an output schema is not referenced, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose statement followed by a brief parameter description. Every sentence is necessary and no fluff is present. It is front-loaded with the key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameter. However, it lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and any reference to the output, making it only adequate for a simple 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the law_id parameter by providing examples ('12345' or 'statute:12345'). This helps clarify the expected format, which the schema alone (type string) does not. It adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 gets a list of attached forms and tables (별표/서식) for a specific statute, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_legal_resource or search_law_articles, which might also retrieve statute-related information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The absence of such context leaves the agent without decision-making cues for tool selection among siblings.

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