find_learning_components_from_standard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: a limit of up to 5 results and the requirement to pass one of two identifier forms. It does not disclose behavior when both or neither identifiers are supplied, nor what happens on no results.

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 with no filler. The result limit and primary input rule are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to using the tool correctly.

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 two-parameter lookup with an output schema, the essential call shape is present. However, without annotations or alternative tool guidance, an agent cannot clearly determine when to choose this over the progression or misconception siblings, and the schema's lack of required parameters is not resolved by the description.

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. It names both parameters and clarifies the key semantic: they are alternatives ('or a bare code'). It stops short of specifying the exact code format, but the core meaning is clear.

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 clear action ('Return') and resource ('sub-skill component descriptions for the standard'), including a result cap ('up to 5'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though 'sub-skill component' is distinct enough to set it apart from misconceptions or progressions.

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 implies usage when decomposing a standard into sub-skills, and gives an invocation pattern ('Pass caseIdentifierUUID or a bare code'). However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as find_standards_progression_from_standard or find_misconceptions_for_standard.

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