Get ONES Requirement Execution Tasks By Ref

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, nondestructive, idempotent, open-world. The description adds no significant behavioral traits beyond the input keys. No contradictions; adequate 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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and key inputs. No filler, every word adds value.

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 single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention return multiplicity or edge cases, but the essential input-output contract is clear.

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 description explains that 'ref' can be a requirement number, task id, or task URL, adding meaning beyond the schema (which only defines a string). However, schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but lacks explicit format details.

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 tool fetches execution-task candidates by requirement number, task id, or URL. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_execution_tasks', which may have a similar purpose, leaving ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of siblings like 'get_execution_tasks', the description should clarify the distinction (e.g., 'candidates' vs full tasks).

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