prereqs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain ordering semantics and the meaning of startable=true, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or what happens for unknown or invalid task ids.

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 concise and front-loaded. The usage question appears first, followed by the output shape and the meaning of startable=true. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description covers the key return semantics: dependency-ordered layers and the startable flag. For a low-complexity, single-required-parameter tool, this is largely sufficient. It could mention edge cases like cycles or empty prerequisite sets, but startable=true largely handles the empty case.

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 parameters (id, branch, project) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level nuance beyond the core concept of 'the task you want to start,' so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it answers what must be done before starting a task and returns open prerequisites as dependency-ordered layers. It also distinguishes itself from likely sibling tools by introducing a concrete output structure (work layer 1 first) and the startable flag.

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 opening phrase, 'to start working on this task, what has to be done first?', gives a clear usage context: call this before starting a task to identify prerequisites. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended scenario is obvious.

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