trace_requirement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It says 'Return', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it describe the output structure beyond the chain. Since an output schema exists, the return format is covered, but the description does not add behavioral context such as side effects, performance, or error cases.

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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence that states the action, scope, and trace types with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks guidance on usage context and potential differences from similar tools. It does not mention prerequisites, error scenarios, or the exact format of the trace chain, which would be helpful for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does identify requirement_id as the target of the trace, saying 'for one requirement', which adds meaning beyond the bare parameter title. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of the ID, or what constitutes a valid requirement, so it only partially bridges the gap.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'full traceability chain for one requirement', and explicitly enumerates the trace types (derive, satisfy, verify). This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_satisfy, add_verify, and check_requirement_coverage, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. It is a read operation, but there is no mention of when a user would prefer this over check_requirement_coverage or export_requirements_matrix, leaving the agent to infer the intended use.

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