نمودار گانت پروژه

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the significant behavioral gate (Gantt-enabled projects only) and hints at the returned structure, but says nothing about pagination, size limits, or failure modes for a potentially large project chart.

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?

Roughly four lines of dense content with parenthetical Persian glosses (گانت, فاز) that interrupt sentence flow. It is front-loaded and largely earns its place, but the bilingual asides and the trailing eligibility clause make it slightly bulky for a read-only call.

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?

For a single-param read tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it conveys both the shape of the return and the precondition for success. The omission of behavior when Gantt is disabled and of result-size guidance keeps it short of 5.

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 coverage is 100%; the project_id field already documents its origin ('from mizito_list_projects'). The description adds no parameter detail, but with a single fully documented required param the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieve the project's Gantt chart) and enumerates what the response contains: phases in order, task start/finish dates, progress, assignees, dependencies. It does not name a sibling it is distinct from (e.g., mizito_get_project or mizito_list_tasks), so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it below 5.

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?

Gives an explicit eligibility condition: 'Advanced projects with Gantt enabled only.' That tells the agent when the call is valid and warns of an empty/failed result otherwise. It does not point to a fallback tool when Gantt is disabled, so a 5 is not warranted.

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