list_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state required permissions, pagination, response format, or whether any side effects occur. The API reference (tl.getRequirements) adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists scoping options. It contains no filler and is easy to scan.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and scoping but leaves out behavioral details such as returned data structure, result limits, or how filters interplay. It is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully 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 only 25% (only reqSpecId has a description). The description adds meaning by mapping three parameters to scoping concepts (test plan/platform/req spec), but it does not explain parameter formats or potential combinations. This partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool lists requirements for a project, with optional scoping by test plan, platform, or requirement specification. This is a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes it from siblings like get_requirement (singular) and list_test_plans.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: listing requirements, optionally filtered. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping context implies typical usage. It stops short of a full when-to-use/not-use guide.

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