Retrieve a requirement by ID along with all flows in its use case to inspect context for requirements-to-code tracing.
A requirement (use-case flow, e.g. UC10S1) with the other flows of its use case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requirement_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does little. It does convey one useful trait — that the response includes the other flows of the parent use case, not just the requested item — but says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid ID, permissions, or output shape.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is a fragment that omits the action verb; brevity here reads as under-specification rather than discipline.
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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much implicit: it doesn't state retrieval semantics, error behavior, or how it relates to the other knowledge-graph tools. Only the return-scope hint is genuinely useful.
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?
Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The 'UC10S1' example does clarify the expected ID format, which the schema does not, but the description never states what the parameter means or whether it accepts other ID schemes.
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 is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but it does identify the resource (a requirement / use-case flow) and its scope (the other flows of the same use case). The 'UC10S1' example anchors the ID style. It fails to say the tool retrieves by ID and does not differentiate itself from siblings like related_classes or trace_matrix.
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?
No indication of when to call this versus the sibling tools (search_code, read_class, related_classes, trace_matrix, coverage_gaps). Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.