get-required-owned

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify output format, error handling, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the purpose with a helpful example. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only query tool in this context, it provides a foundation but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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, with the single parameter 'role' documented as 'The ARIA role name'. The description adds an example ('e.g., list requires listitem') that illustrates the parameter's semantics, providing context beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on format, validation, or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without substantial extra value.

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's purpose: 'Get the required child elements for a role' with a specific example ('e.g., list requires listitem'). This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('required child elements for a role'), making the function understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-required-context' or 'get-required-attributes', which handle related but different requirements.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include similar 'get-required-*' tools (e.g., 'get-required-attributes', 'get-required-context'), the absence of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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