get_law_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens with no parameters. While it states the type of data returned, it is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise with two short phrases. No unnecessary words, directly conveys the tool's function. This is appropriately sized and 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 the tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values and usage context more thoroughly. It lacks information about output format or parameter combinations, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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% (all parameters described in the schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions in 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 retrieves the table of contents structure (part/chapter/section) of statutes. The verb '조회' (retrieve) and specific resource '법령 목차 구조' make the purpose clear, but it does not differentiate from siblings like get_law_system_tree.

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 says '내부 체계 파악용' (for understanding internal structure), which implies a context but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the AI to guess when to choose this tool over similar siblings.

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