list_relationships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results come from the CPM engine, lag is in working days of the predecessor, and relationship float is included. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: first the core listing behavior and output fields, then the available filters. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema titles.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the return values and the main filter options, which is helpful. But it omits the meaning of the required path parameter assured by the schema, the effect of limit, and any invocation context such as how path/project relate to the schedule file. An agent may still have to infer some call details.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does explain activity filtering (either end), rel_type values (FS/SS/FF/SF), lag range, and driving_only. However, it leaves the required path parameter and the limit/project parameters undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List relationships') and enumerates the returned fields: predecessor -> successor, type, lag in working days, driving flag, and relationship float from the CPM engine. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on activities, resources, or paths.

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 gives useful filtering context (activity, rel_type, lag range, driving_only), so the tool's main behavior is clear. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over siblings like list_activities, critical_path, or driving_path, nor does it state any when-not-to-use conditions.

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