get_requirement

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses the multiple-subgoal resolution for display_id and shared display IDs for underlined variants. Missing details on error handling (e.g., missing ID), read-only nature, or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and essential usage details. Every sentence provides value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, description covers the main behavior but omits return format, error scenarios, and explicit comparison with sibling tools. Adequate for basic usage but not fully complete.

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 0%; description adds meaning for 'id' parameter by explaining acceptable formats (pattern_id or display_id) and behavior. However, 'include_pattern' boolean is not described, leaving the agent to guess its effect on output.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'retrieve' and resource 'subgoal' with its components. It distinguishes two types of IDs but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_patterns_for_task' or 'get_operational_heuristic' which are similar lookup operations.

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?

Provides context on when to use pattern_id versus display_id and mentions the multiple-resolution behavior of display_id. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives like 'search_patterns' or 'resolve_id'.

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