list_requirements

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it supports fuzzy search (the keyword description hints at title fuzzy search but is not in the description), or what happens when no results are found. The parameter 'keyword' mention in schema is not echoed in the description, missing an opportunity to disclose search behavior.

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, concise sentence in Chinese that communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous text. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and every character earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return format (e.g., list of requirement objects, count) or edge cases (e.g., invalid project number). A moderately complete description would still need to mention search behavior and pagination effects, which are absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information beyond the schema—it does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., keyword applies to title only, pagination with page/limit). However, since the schema already fully documents each parameter, the description does not detract but adds no extra semantic 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 verb '查詢' (query) and the resource '需求清單' (requirements list), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_requirement' and 'get_requirement_detail' by framing it as a list operation. However, it does not explicitly mention that it lists requirements for a given project, though the parameter 'pno' implies this. The purpose is clear but could be more explicit about the resource being 'requirements of a project.'

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, the difference from 'get_requirement_detail' (which likely returns a single requirement) or 'list_projects' (which lists projects) is not clarified. There is no mention of prerequisites or context such as needing a valid project number first.

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