Get ticket requirements

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description discloses the return value structure (structured fields and raw markdown) and the null return when no pad exists. This adds significant behavioral context not captured by 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?

Two concise sentences: the first describes the output structure, the second covers the null return. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficiently front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description is complete for a read tool with good annotations: it explains the return value (structured + raw markdown, or null) and the read-only nature. However, it does not address behavior when the ticket itself does not exist (e.g., error vs null), leaving a minor gap.

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% for the 2 parameters (ticket, project). The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they are used. With no parameter descriptions in the schema, the tool description should compensate but fails to do so.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as a 'ticket's requirements pad'. It lists the structured components (intent, assumptions, acceptance criteria, open questions) and mentions raw markdown, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like set_requirements.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for reading the requirements pad, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_requirements or check_acceptance. The readOnlyHint annotation reinforces its read-only nature, but no exclusion criteria are provided.

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