선행 경로

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — results are grouped by depth and L0 is the starting point — but it leaves open whether the traversal is transitive to all ancestors or only immediate prerequisites, and what the grouped return shape looks like despite there being no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the L0 orientation detail. No filler, though the second sentence is terse enough to border on cryptic.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and only partially meets it: '깊이별' and 'L0이 출발점' hint at the structure but do not clarify whether L0 is the target concept itself or the first prerequisite ring, nor whether the result is a flat list or nested levels. Adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to interpret the response confidently.

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 single required 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only implies via '개념 하나' that the id identifies a concept, without stating the ID domain, valid range, or behavior on unknown IDs — minimal but not zero compensation.

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 and resource: it returns all prerequisite concepts needed to understand a given concept, grouped by depth. This is distinguishable in kind from siblings like get_concept (single concept) and rank_shared_prerequisites, although the description never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the closely related siblings (get_concept, rank_shared_prerequisites, find_concepts_for_exam_items) are referenced. The learning-path use case is only inferable from the phrase '개념 하나를 이해하는 데 필요한'.

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