wbs_tree

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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns aggregated/rolled-up values (activity count including everything below, earliest start, latest finish, lowest total float), which tells the agent what kind of computation to expect. It doesn't disclose pagination or performance implications of deep max_depth, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose (WBS hierarchy) and then lists the computed fields. It is compact and every phrase adds information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and readable.

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 read-only tree tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output shape and the key parameter (max_depth). However, it doesn't explain what path refers to (a WBS path? a project path?), what limit does, or how project interacts with path. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is adequate but has 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 explains the meaning of max_depth ('down to max_depth levels') and implies the output structure, but it doesn't clarify the semantics of path, limit, or project. The description adds some meaning for max_depth but leaves the other three parameters to be inferred from their names and defaults.

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 returns a WBS hierarchy down to a specified depth, with specific computed fields per node (activity count, incomplete count, earliest start, latest finish, lowest total float). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_activities or critical_path, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 this is for exploring WBS hierarchy with schedule metrics, and the max_depth parameter signals a drill-down use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over list_activities, schedule_summary, or driving_path, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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