get_issue_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavior: the chain is empty for single-issue questions or questions with no compiled context. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, side effects, failure modes, or the output format, relying on the 'get' prefix to imply safety.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core function, then purpose, then usage and the empty-chain condition. The motivational phrase about memorizing isolated test points is mildly promotional, but it reinforces the intended use context rather than being pure 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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description explains the output concept and the empty case clearly. However, because there is no output schema, it does not specify the exact structure of the chain, such as whether it is a list of prerequisite edges or how issue identifiers are represented, leaving some ambiguity for an agent interpreting the result.

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%, and the description never explicitly defines the 'qid' parameter or its expected format. The phrase '一題' and '單爭點題' hint that qid identifies a question, but this is indirect compensation for the only required parameter. An agent must infer qid conventions primarily from sibling tool names.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns the prerequisite-question chain ('先決問題鏈') among multiple issues of a question. It also distinguishes itself by noting the chain is empty for single-issue or un-linked questions, which helps separate it from generic issue-lookup siblings like get_issues or get_issue_primer, though it never names them.

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?

It explicitly tells users to consult the chain before solving comprehensive essay questions ('帶使用者解綜合申論前先看脈絡') and gives a when-not condition: single-issue questions or questions without a compiled context return an empty chain. It lacks explicit alternative tool names, so it stops short of a 5.

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