s_curve

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds beyond them: the source precedence for planned values (baseline_path, stored baseline, or P6 planned dates) and the linear spreading over working time. It also states the data-date comparison behavior. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the core output, then expands into measure, period, resource, and baseline sources. It earns its place, though one dense sentence mixes several distinct facts and could be better structured.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no per-parameter schema descriptions, the description covers the main concepts but omits the semantics of several input fields (limit, project, baseline_project) and gives only a partial return-value picture. This is adequate with clear gaps.

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 compensate. It does explain period, measure, resource, and baseline_path, but leaves limit, project, and baseline_project unexplained. This is a meaningful gap given 8 parameters.

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 as producing S-curve/loading data by period with planned vs actual vs forecast and cumulative values, and it names supported measures and periods. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like baseline_variance or schedule_summary, so not a full 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?

The description gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: period-level loading/curves, cost/units/activities, resource histograms, and baseline vs actual comparison up to the data date. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name an alternative, but the context is sufficient for choosing it.

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