Extract ONES Requirement Materials By Ref

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that results are aggregated across four heterogeneous categories rather than a single resource type, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, truncation, or what 'completeness hints' actually means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the verb, the returned resource categories, and the accepted identifier forms. Every clause carries information; there is no filler 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers what is extracted and what identifies the target, making it largely self-sufficient. The only residual gap is that the meaning and format of 'completeness hints' is left undefined.

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% — the schema only says 'ref' is a non-empty string. The description compensates well by telling the agent that ref accepts a requirement number, a task id, or a task URL, which is exactly the disambiguation needed to call the tool correctly. It does not give format examples for each identifier type, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (extract) and enumerates the exact resource types returned (wiki pages, external links, rich resources, completeness hints), plus the three identifier forms accepted. This clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_related_wiki_pages_by_ref or get_task_rich_resources_by_ref, which cover only one category each. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the non-ref extract_requirement_materials sibling.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many alternatives in the sibling list (extract_requirement_materials, get_related_wiki_pages_by_ref, get_task_rich_resources_by_ref, resolve_requirement). The 'by_ref' naming implies the agent must already have a requirement number, task id, or URL, but this is inferred from the name rather than stated as guidance.

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