extract_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 of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this reads, mutates, or creates state, whether it requires input documentation from a prior step, what side effects occur, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely short at one clause, which could be seen as efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structural elements like usage context, output description, or examples. The brevity is more an artifact of poverty than genuine economy.

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?

This is a complex extraction tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation. The description gives no sense of what the extracted requirements look like, what documentation it consumes, whether it generates tickets downstream, or what the return value contains. Given the rich sibling ecosystem, this tool is severely under-documented.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no parameters). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 says 'Extract and structure requirements from documentation' which uses a verb and resource, but it's vague about the source (which documentation?), the target output format, and scope. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like synthesize_documentation or generate_tickets, and lacks specifics on what 'structure' produces.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like synthesize_documentation, generate_tickets, and design_erd, the agent cannot determine when requirement extraction is appropriate. No exclusions, preconditions, or alternative references are given.

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