reqs_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the not-found error behavior and the 'full body' response characteristic. It could additionally state read-only/idempotent nature explicitly, but the verb 'Fetch' plus error semantics provide reasonable transparency for this simple read operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is the first sentence, followed by error behavior and the alternative tool, then the parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the clear behavioral/alternative guidance, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing important is missing.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting req_id as 'The requirement ID (e.g. FR-001)', which adds domain meaning and an example format beyond the bare string type. For a single parameter, this is sufficient added value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single requirement by ID with full body.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling reqs_query by emphasizing single-item strict lookup, so an agent can tell what the tool does and how it differs.

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?

It explicitly states the strict error-raising behavior for missing IDs and directs the agent to reqs_query(ids=[...]) for lenient batch lookup that silently drops missing IDs. This is an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guideline with a named alternative.

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