get_annexes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool extracts content from attachments but does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether it downloads, parses text, or any side effects. Minimal transparency for a read 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?

The description is concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose ('[별표] 별표/서식 조회') and then provides a usage hint. While brief, every sentence adds value; minor improvement could include clearer separation of usage guidance.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output format (e.g., text, URL) or how to handle multiple attachments, pagination, or errors. A more complete description would clarify what the user receives.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the usage pattern of combining lawName with '별표N', and notes that amounts/standards are in attachments, which relates to parameters like annexNo. However, it does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it is for searching and extracting contents of attachments/forms ('별표/서식') using lawName and a pattern like '별표N'. It also notes that amounts/standards are often in attachments, which adds context. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_alio_annexes', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 provides a specific usage hint: use lawName+'별표N' to extract content. This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternative tools like 'get_alio_annexes', leaving room for ambiguity.

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