get_requirement_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'Get' and 'Returns', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, or any other behavioral traits. The standard reference adds context but not operational transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear Args/Returns structure. Every line earns its place without unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral safety disclosure, which are gaps for full completeness.

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 only a title 'Req Id', while the description explains 'req_id: Requirement ID', adding semantic meaning. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it doesn't specify format or examples.

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 'Get complete version history' with a specific verb and resource, and the IEC 62304 reference adds concrete context. It is distinct from siblings like get_requirement and search_requirements, which focus on current state or queries.

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 use when version history is needed, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude other tools. No sibling comparisons are given, leaving the reader to infer usage context.

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