Extract ONES Requirement Materials By Ref

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the types of materials extracted but does not disclose potential behaviors like empty results, pagination, or performance implications. It is consistent with annotations.

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 that conveys the tool's purpose and parameter semantics without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and outputs.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool extracts and the parameter format. No additional information about return values is needed because the output schema covers that.

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 provides only a 'ref' string with minLength 1 and no description. The description adds critical meaning by explaining that 'ref' can be a requirement number, task id, or task URL, which is essential for correct usage.

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 'Extract' and specifies the resource types: wiki pages, external links, rich resources, and completeness hints. It also clarifies that the input can be a requirement number, task id, or task URL. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'extract_requirement_materials' or 'get_related_wiki_pages'.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only mentions input types but lacks context about when to prefer this over 'extract_requirement_materials' or other sibling tools that retrieve similar data.

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