Get a requirement

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what is already evident from the name and annotation—e.g., no mention of error handling, authorization, or response shape. With annotations present, the description is expected to add some context, but it does not.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool and front-loads the action.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (a read operation with two fully described parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation), the description is adequate. It lacks explicit return-value details, but no output schema exists, and for a 'fetch by ID' pattern the behavior is generally predictable. The tool is well-contextualized by its name and siblings.

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 100%, with both parameters (projectId and requirementId) described in the schema. The description only paraphrases 'by ID' but does not add new semantic detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers the parameter meanings fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single requirement') and the key selector ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qtest_list_requirements (list multiple) and qtest_get_requirement_coverage (coverage-specific).

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 the use case: retrieve one requirement when you have its ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as using qtest_list_requirements for listing or qtest_get_requirement_coverage for coverage. Since the usage is implied by the wording, it meets the 'implied usage' bar.

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