extract_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it parses markdown and saves to requirements.json, implying a file write. However, it does not clarify whether existing requirements.json will be overwritten, whether the path refers to a file or directory, or what error handling looks like. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place entirely.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. However, it lacks clarity on what 'path' refers to and whether multiple files are parsed. For a simple tool, this is minimally viable but has gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description gives no hint about what path points to (e.g., a single file or directory containing markdown files). This is a significant 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 action (parse), the resource (PRD markdown files), and the outcome (extract structured requirements and save to requirements.json). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_prd (which likely retrieves the PRD) and verify_requirements (which checks 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 implies usage (parse PRD files to extract requirements) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is inferable from the sibling tool names, but there is no direct guidance.

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