chain_law_system

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the automatic chaining process (법령검색→3단비교→조문→별표), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected, but not stated), authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 brief (two lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a compact structure with emojis and bullet points, making it scannable. However, it could be more concise in English and avoid the initial bracket emoji for broader accessibility.

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 has 3 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It only vaguely says '법체계 파악' without specifying the output format or content. For a chaining tool, the lack of detail on the final output or the steps' results reduces completeness.

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 input schema has 67% description coverage (2 of 3 parameters described). The description adds context about the chaining process but does not explain parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The 'apiKey' parameter lacks description both in schema and description, so no added value.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to grasp the legal system by chaining law search, three-tier comparison, articles, and appendix. This clearly identifies the verb-phrase and resource (법체계 파악) and differentiates it from sibling chain tools like chain_action_basis and chain_alio_benchmark, which focus on different aspects.

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 notes '법 구조 질문 시' (for law structure questions), implying the tool is suitable for structural queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity compared to sibling tools like get_law_system_tree or get_law_tree.

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