공통 선행 개념

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 limited to the most specific shared prerequisites and are sorted by how many input concepts share them. It does not disclose the cap/truncation behavior, empty-result handling, or the default for the limit parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the result and the ordering rule in one pass. It is efficient, though extremely short given the 0% schema coverage it is compensating for.

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 does explain what comes back conceptually (prerequisite concepts, ranked by shared count), which is the key missing piece. However, for a tool with fully undocumented parameters and no field-level return detail, it still leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need in order to call and interpret it correctly.

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%, with two undocumented parameters (ids: array of 1–30 integers, limit: 1–20), so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It only hints that several concept IDs are supplied ("개념 여러 개"), giving no indication of what ids accept or what limit controls or defaults to.

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 names a specific verb (돌려준다 / returns) and a precise resource — the most specific prerequisite concepts shared by multiple given concepts — plus the ordering rule (descending by number of sharing concepts). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_prerequisite_path (a path for one concept) and search_concepts (lookup by text).

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 statement of when to use this instead of get_prerequisite_path or search_concepts, and no preconditions or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it takes several concepts and returns their common ancestors, which leaves the agent to guess at routing.

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