get_requirement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Formatted requirement details including traceability links') and the non-mutating verb 'Retrieve' implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose error handling, permissions, or explicit side-effect confirmation.

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 exceptionally concise with a clean structure: a one-line purpose, an Args block explaining the parameter, and a Returns block. Every sentence contributes value with no 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?

For a simple parameterless-by-schema tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could be improved with a note about edge cases or alternatives, but given low complexity, it is adequate.

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 schema provides no description for req_id, but the description adds 'Requirement ID (e.g., SWR-001)', giving context and an example. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter description.

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 states 'Retrieve a requirement by ID', specifying the exact operation and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_requirement, update_requirement, and get_requirement_history, which involve different actions or scopes.

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 usage for direct ID lookup but never explicitly says when to use this vs. alternatives like search_requirements. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guideline is minimal.

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