it_ops_requirements_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, whether writes occur, or expected outcomes. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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?

Description is quite concise with only three sentences plus argument list. It front-loads the core action. No unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description provides no context about what the action returns or how to interpret results. For a domain agent action, more context about purpose and outcomes is needed for effective use.

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%, but the description adds brief meanings for both parameters: 'message' is free-text objective, 'inputs' is optional JSON string. This is basic but provides some value beyond the schema. Could specify structure or constraints.

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 it runs the 'it_ops domain agent action requirements_capture', which gives a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'requirements_capture' actually does or how it differs from similar sibling tools like it_ops_product_requirements_intake.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is silent on prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.

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