critical_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral detail: traces driving relationships from latest finish, honors a threshold, and specifies row content (total float and driven indicator). This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of the operation's semantics.

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 dense but efficient sentences carry a lot of information with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by method variations and output row description. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the output row contents and method behavior, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it leaves critical parameter semantics for 'path', 'limit', and 'project' unexplained, and doesn't clarify the meaning of the default 'limit' value (0). For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this gap makes it less than complete.

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%, so the description must define all parameters. It only explains 'method' and 'float_threshold_days'; the required 'path' and optional 'limit' and 'project' are left ambiguous. Out of 5 parameters, 2 are clarified, which is insufficient given the zero coverage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving the critical path in start order, with a specific verb implied ('get'/'list') and a specific resource. It distinguishes two methods, which helps distinguish it from siblings like driving_path, and the comparison to P6's Longest Path adds concrete domain grounding.

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 explains when to use each method ('longest_path' default vs 'total_float' with threshold), giving clear context for selecting the appropriate behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the method-level guidance is strong enough for most agent decisions.

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