List Project WBS Patterns

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds value by explaining the paginated JSON array response and metadata, and that it requires project_id. No contradictions 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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then response format, then endpoint info. All sentences add value without redundancy. Could be slightly shorter but is well-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?

Given no output schema, the description specifies the response is a paginated JSON array of Work Breakdown Structure records with pagination metadata. It covers required parameters and pagination. It does not detail the fields of a WBS pattern, but for a list tool this is acceptable.

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 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (project_id as URL path, page default 1, per_page default 100 max 100). The description reiterates 'Required parameters: project_id' and mentions pagination parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'Work Breakdown Structure patterns for a project'. It distinguishes itself by specifying use cases: paginated overview, find IDs, filter by query parameters. The verb 'enumerate' and resource are specific.

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 provides when to use: when needing a paginated overview, to find IDs, or filter by query parameters. It mentions required parameter project_id and how pagination works (page, per_page). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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