List Company WBS Patterns

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds useful failure modes (401/403/404) and default behavior. However, it contradicts the schema by saying company_id is optional when schema marks it required, and the return type is described as both 'All patterns' and 'a single JSON object', creating ambiguity.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, usage, and technical details. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the internal contradictions make it slightly less concise in effect.

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 many aspects (errors, defaults, read-only) but has critical inconsistencies about requiredness and return shape. An agent cannot reliably determine whether the tool returns a list or a single object, which is essential for downstream handling.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description is clear, but the description's default statement for company_id directly contradicts the schema's required flag. This misleading information outweighs the added context.

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 listing WBS patterns for a company, and the company scope distinguishes it from sibling 'list_project_wbs_patterns'. However, the line 'Use this when you already know which company WBS pattern you want' is confusing for a list operation and muddies the purpose.

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 a when-to-use statement ('when you already know which company WBS pattern you want...'), but this guidance is questionable for a list endpoint and no alternatives or exclusions are given. The default company_id behavior is useful context.

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