alm_list_requirements

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 and pagination behavior, indicating a read-only operation. It does not mention error handling or invalid query behavior, but overall it provides sufficient transparency for a list tool.

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 concise with a front-loaded main purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the format aids quick comprehension.

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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters with examples, and return format. Minor omissions: no error handling details, but overall it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that query is an HPQL filter string with concrete examples, and that page_size controls maximum results with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'List requirements from the project with optional HPQL filter.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('requirements'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like alm_get_requirement (single item) or alm_list_defects (different resource).

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 provides guidance on the query parameter with examples (e.g., 'status[Not Covered]') and explains behavior when left empty. It defines page_size default. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like alm_search, which is a minor gap.

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