Analisis masalah hukum evidence-first

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

Given the annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it only retains evidence-backed claims and abstains when evidence is insufficient. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not clarify what an abstention looks like in the output.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and the annotations plus the presence of an output schema cover much of the behavioral and return contract. The description adds the core evidence-filtering and abstention behavior. A slight gap remains around what 'abstain' means operationally and when to reach for this tool instead of a sibling, but overall it is adequate.

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, but it never explicitly documents the 'question' parameter. The tool name and title imply the parameter is the legal problem to analyze, but this is implicit rather than stated.

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 states a specific verb ('Susun' / compile) and a clear resource ('research result'), with the qualifier 'hanya mempertahankan klaim dengan evidence' making the evidence-first nature explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like research_sharia_issue or analyze_uploaded_document, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as search_legal_sources or analyze_uploaded_document. The phrase 'abstain bila sumber belum cukup' is a behavioral instruction, not a tool-selection guideline.

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