get_toc

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains that depth truncates hierarchy and that the tool is for token saving, but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. Acceptable for a simple retrieval tool but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, each with clear purpose: first defines core function, second adds depth parameter context and use case. No wasted words, highly 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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify return format. It mentions 'structure of parts, chapters, sections, articles' but not whether output is nested or flat. Missing details on behavior for invalid law names or depth values. Adequate for a simple tool, but could be more complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage with good descriptions. Tool description adds extra context by explaining depth's purpose for overview and token saving, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves only the table of contents structure, explicitly distinguishing from full law retrieval with 'のみ' (only) and token-saving purpose, and mentions depth for overview of large laws, setting it apart from siblings like get_law.

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?

Description implies usage for token-saving and large law overview via depth, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or list alternative tools for full content or search, leaving guidance implicit.

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