Get requirement coverage

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

The description complements the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying that the tool returns a list of test cases currently linked to the requirement, adding the 'currently linked' context which implies a real-time view. It does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, but annotations already establish it is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the main action ('List') and directly states the scope, capturing the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema) and the description is sufficient to understand its function. It does not mention return value format, but the purpose is clear and annotations cover safety. The context is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though a note about the response being an array of test cases would have pushed it to 5.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Numeric project ID.' and 'Requirement ID.'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no information about the parameters themselves, so it relies on the schema. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, which is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('test cases currently linked to (covering) a requirement'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like qtest_get_requirement (which fetches requirement details) and qtest_get_traceability_matrix (which provides a broader coverage view). This unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 you need to see which test cases cover a specific requirement, based on 'currently linked to (covering) a requirement.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear, especially given the required requirementId parameter. Sibling tools like qtest_get_traceability_matrix are not referenced, but the specific phrasing provides sufficient guidance.

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