extract_precedent_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., API calls), permission requirements, error behavior, or output format. Only the schema covers parameters; the description adds no behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly terse and could be expanded slightly to include usage context without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of keywords) or how it relates to similar sibling tools like summarize_precedent. An agent may be uncertain without trial.

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 100%, providing clear explanations for all three parameters (id, maxKeywords, apiKey). The tool description adds no additional parameter information. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 with high schema coverage.

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 '판례 키워드 추출' (extract precedent keywords) clearly states the action (extract) and resource (precedent keywords). It distinguishes from siblings like 'summarize_precedent' or 'get_precedent_text' which provide different operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or preferred context. The description simply states the action without context.

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