list_laws

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('조회합니다' = retrieve/inquire), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose pagination, default limit behavior, or the possibility of returning all types when 'type' is null. The description is minimally transparent for a simple list 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences that directly state the purpose and key constraint. Every word contributes; no filler or redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and differentiation but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_by_agency or search_by_region. It does not mention the optional 'type' parameter or the default limit. Given the simple nature and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'type' parameter by stating list is '유형별' (by type), but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The enum values in the schema partially cover type semantics, but the limit parameter remains unexplained. Thus, the description adds some value but not full compensation.

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 retrieves a list of laws by type ('법령 유형별 목록을 조회합니다') and explicitly distinguishes it from keyword search ('키워드 검색 없이 유형별 법령 목록을 가져옵니다'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_law, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a list by type without keyword search. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. The hint 'without keyword search' suggests a contrast with search_law, but no clear when/when-not guidance is given.

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