list_law_packs

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

The term 'list enabled' implies a non-destructive read operation, but no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, limits, authentication needs) are provided. With no annotations, some burden is on description, but it's adequate.

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?

Single sentence with no waste. Essential information front-loaded.

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 three required parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, description lacks details on return format, parameter structure, and edge cases. Incomplete for effective use.

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 0%, so description should compensate. It names the parameters but does not explain formats, constraints, or the structure of the object parameter (jurisdiction). Minimal value added.

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 lists enabled law packs for Taiwan/New Taipei with specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings which are about building, running, or checking other items.

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 specifies when to use (for listing law packs) and includes required context (jurisdiction, case type, procedure stage). No explicit when-not or alternatives, but clarity is high.

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