Get Prerequisite Chain

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

The description discloses that the operation is recursive and caps depth at 10, which is meaningful behavioral information beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the annotation and gives a useful constraint for agents deciding whether the result will be complete.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the purpose and the depth cap. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant or vague 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description is largely complete: it explains the input, the output concept, the recursion, and the cap. It does not describe the exact return format or ordering, but no output schema exists, and the missing details are unlikely to prevent correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already explains featureKey as 'The feature_key to trace prerequisites for.' The description adds the notion of a recursive chain but does not materially enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('returns'), a specific resource ('full recursive prerequisite chain'), and a clear purpose ('audit whether the sequencing is pedagogically sound'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cl_get_grammar_map or cl_get_content, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need to trace prerequisites for a specific grammar feature to evaluate pedagogical sequencing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the many sibling tools.

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