list_asset_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone. It usefully discloses the source file, the parsing behavior, the three status markers, and that SHA-256 receipts are attached, which implies a read-only operation. It does not say what happens if the file is missing, whether it is safe/idempotent, or how large the result can be.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the source, the operation, the return categories, and the receipt detail with no filler.

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?

Return shape is reasonably covered despite no output schema, and the read-only nature is implied. However, for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented and whose failure modes are unstated, an agent still lacks what it needs to call it confidently across projects.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'project' parameter, and the description never mentions it. The hardcoded 'workspace/' path hints at project scoping but leaves the agent to guess what the parameter controls or what 'default' means.

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 names a specific verb pair ('Parse ... and return'), a specific resource (workspace/ASSET_REQUIREMENTS.md), and the exact status buckets it returns. This clearly separates it from write-side siblings like add_asset_requirement and fulfill_asset_requirements, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_assets, read_workspace_doc, or the requirement mutation tools. The reading context is only inferable from the fact that it returns open/in-progress/completed items; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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