fow_get_requirement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the effects ('no model/provider calls', immutable revision history) and the need for an existing canonical ID — cost, side-effect and precondition context the annotations cannot express.

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 key claim (what is retrieved) is front-loaded, and the Prerequisites/Effects labeling makes it scannable. The trailing 'Exact help (replace operation_name with the selected route)' boilerplate is a bit of templated filler, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

A read-only retrieval tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% parameter description coverage needs little more than this. The description supplies the operation model, prerequisites, side-effect profile and help routing, leaving no gap an agent must close before calling it.

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% and both parameters are documented there in detail (canonical lifecycle project ID, requirement identity as returned by registration/import). The description's phrase 'existing canonical requirement ID within its project' only lightly reinforces that, without adding format, syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (one existing requirement), and explicitly scopes what is returned: current canonical state plus retained revision history. The resource is unique among siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from fow_get_artifacts, fow_get_job, and the mutate-oriented fow_revise_requirement without opening the schema.

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?

Gives invocation guidance ('Single operation; call directly without an operation argument') and a precondition ('Use an existing canonical requirement ID within its project'), which is more than nothing. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as fow_traceability or fow_revise_requirement, and there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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