critical_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds significant behavioral context by explaining the merge-bias adjustment algorithm (5% duration increase per extra predecessor beyond 2), which goes beyond the 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?

The description is highly concise with two short paragraphs (4 sentences). The key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 explains the algorithm well but does not describe the output format or return value. Since there is no output schema, more detail on what the tool returns (e.g., critical tasks, slack) would improve completeness. It also omits error conditions like cycles.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not mention the parameters or add any meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 computes critical path with merge-bias adjustment, distinguishing it from sibling tools like monte_carlo_schedule or pert_estimate. It specifies the verb 'compute' and resource 'critical path', and mentions the unique merge-bias feature.

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 implies use for project schedule analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context.

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