Get ONES Requirement Detail

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

Annotations provide strong safety guarantees (readOnly, not destructive, idempotent, open world). The description adds value by specifying the type of data retrieved (body, fields, related task facts), which is beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Two highly efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers purpose and scope; the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool (2 params, output schema provided, rich annotations), the description covers core purpose and guidance. It does not explain the optional team_id parameter or return structure, but output schema likely covers that. Adequate for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters. While 'task_id' is implied by 'by task id', the optional 'team_id' is not mentioned. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('requirement detail') including what is returned ('body, fields, and related task facts'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_requirement_detail_by_ref' by specifying when to use each.

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 explicitly prefers 'get_requirement_detail_by_ref' when starting from a requirement number or URL, implicitly guiding the agent to use this tool when a task_id is available. While not explicit about when to use this tool, the contrast is clear.

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