List ONES Requirement Bugs By Ref

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

Annotations provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond verifying it is a read operation. No contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without redundancy. It is front-loaded and 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 single-parameter tool and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics. However, the phrase 'when explicitly requested' is cryptic and could be clarified, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively defines the 'ref' parameter as accepting a requirement number, task id, or task URL, adding essential meaning that the raw schema lacks.

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 lists bugs under a requirement by a reference (requirement number, task id, or task URL). It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_requirement_bugs' which lacks the ref parameter. However, the phrase 'when explicitly requested' adds mild 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over siblings like 'list_requirement_bugs' or other bug-related tools. The description only states functionality without usage context or exclusions.

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