List requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral nuance—that includeDocuments also returns the requirement documents—and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, response format, or potential side effects, but for a simple listing tool this is moderately adequate.

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 core action is front-loaded, and the optional flag behavior is stated in a second clause. Every word earns its place.

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 3-parameter list tool, the description plus fully documented schema covers the necessary calling information: required projectKey, optional includeDocuments, and optional pagination. It does not detail output structure, but the description at least indicates what is returned (requirements and optionally documents). Without annotations or an output schema, a bit more detail on response shape or defaults could help, but it is not critically missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for includeDocuments by explaining that it 'also return[s] the requirement documents they are organized under,' clarifying the relationship between requirements and documents beyond the schema's simple boolean description. No additional insight is given for page or projectKey, but the schema already describes them adequately.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List the requirements of a project.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or create_requirement. The optional includeDocuments clause adds relevant scope without confusion.

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 the tool is for retrieving a project's requirements and optionally its documents, so basic usage is clear. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit need for a project key.

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