Get linked requirements for a test cycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'Get all requirements (stories) linked to a test cycle', implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (though schema includes startAt and maxResults), return format, or whether only active requirements are included. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 clearly and directly states the tool's function. There is no extraneous information, and it is well-suited for quick comprehension.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what data is returned. It only says 'requirements (stories)' but does not specify fields, structure, or whether it returns a list. For a retrieval tool, this leaves uncertainty about the response format.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Thus, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 name and title clearly indicate the tool retrieves requirements linked to a test cycle. The description uses 'Get all requirements (stories) linked to a test cycle', which is specific and distinct from siblings like 'get-qmetry-test-cycle-linked-defects' or 'get-qmetry-test-cycle-linked-test-cases'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-qmetry-test-cycle-linked-defects' or 'get-qmetry-test-cycle-linked-test-cases'. The parameter hint 'Refer id from Search Test Cycles' provides minimal guidance, but no usage context or exclusions are given.

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