get_requirements

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

The description discloses the tool's output structure and source specification. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention potential performance implications (e.g., slower without section filter), which are only implied in parameter descriptions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of purpose and return format. It could be more complete by explicitly stating it is a read-only operation or noting performance characteristics, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds context by specifying the type of requirements (shall/must/may) and return fields (sentence context, section, level). It also references list_specs for available specs and explains section filtering behavior.

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 (extract), resource (normative requirements from PDF specification), and return format (structured with context, section, level). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_definitions and get_section.

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 for extracting requirements but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like search_spec or get_section. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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