List requirements

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that filtering is 'client-side', which implies a distinct mechanism (e.g., results may be fetched and filtered locally) and clarifies the scoping behavior with parentId. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler words. It efficiently covers the tool's scope and key features without redundancy.

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 operation with a fully described schema and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, optional scoping, and filtering. It lacks an output schema but that is not necessary for a list tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic nuance by tying parentId to 'parent module' and search to 'name substring' and 'client-side' filtering, which slightly deepens understanding beyond the schema's property descriptions. This justifies a 4.

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') with a clear resource ('requirements') and adds scoping context ('optionally scoped to a parent module') and filtering behavior ('client-side filtering by name substring'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like qtest_get_requirement (which retrieves a single requirement) and qtest_create_requirement/update_requirement.

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 clear usage context: listing requirements in a project, with optional module scoping and name-substring filtering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool versus others like qtest_get_requirement or qtest_search.

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