cms_get_requirement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes the tool as a 'Get' operation (read-only), which is consistent with its purpose. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the requirement must exist, error handling (e.g., if name not found), permissions required, or performance implications. The description is adequate but not rich beyond the obvious.

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 of moderate length. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists the fields concisely. No wasted words. However, it could be slightly shorter by omitting the field list (which is implied by 'full detail') or moving to a structured format, but this is not a significant issue.

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's low complexity (1 simple parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns (13 fields with examples), and how to use it (by name). While no output schema exists, the description compensates by listing the field categories. Siblings provide context for differentiation.

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% with only one parameter ('name'). The schema already describes it as 'Requirement name (e.g. "Companies Act Compliance")'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it only reiterates that the tool gets details 'by name'. For a single parameter with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('full 13-field detail of a single compliance requirement by name'). It also enumerates the fields included (what it is, why, how it should work, minimum requirements, evidence, pass criteria, non-compliance triggers, owner), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cms_list_requirements (which likely returns a list) and cms_check_compliance (which likely checks status).

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 implicitly states when to use this tool: to retrieve full detail of a single requirement by name. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., cms_list_requirements for a list, cms_check_compliance for a compliance check) provides implicit differentiation. The 'by name' constraint is clear.

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