driving_path

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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral depth by explaining the recursive expansion of driving predecessors and the stopping condition ('back to the activities driven only by the data date or a constraint'), which is not visible in the schema.

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 sentences, no fluff, with the core definition front-loaded and the practical use case immediately after. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter-level documentation. The description gives a strong conceptual model but omits essential invocation details such as what 'path' means, how 'limit' affects the recursion, and how 'project' scopes the request.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It references 'activity' in the use-case sentence, but it does not explain 'path', 'limit', or 'project', leaving an agent without enough information to populate required parameters correctly.

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 defines the tool as a recursive trace of driving predecessors back to data-date/constraint drivers. It also gives a concrete user question it answers ('why is this activity forecast on that date?'), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like critical_path.

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 provides clear context by stating the tool is for explaining why an activity or milestone is forecast on a particular date. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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