List Wbs Code IDs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: paginated JSON array response, pagination controls (page, per_page), pagination metadata, and the exact HTTP method (GET) and endpoint URL. This fully explains the tool's behavior.

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 (5 sentences) and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then usage, then pagination details, then required parameters, and finally API reference. It could be slightly shorter by removing the API endpoint line, but overall it's efficient.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by stating the response is a 'paginated JSON array of Work Breakdown Structure records' with metadata. However, it does not clarify whether these are full records or just IDs (despite the tool name), which introduces ambiguity. It also lacks an example or details on the response structure.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The description only restates that company_id and project_id are required and mentions page/per_page for pagination, which is already obvious from the schema. No additional semantic value is added 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 'List Wbs Code IDs for a given project', specifying both the verb (list) and the resource (WBS code IDs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_wbs_codes' by emphasizing IDs and providing a specific use case (paginated overview, find IDs). The tool name itself is unambiguous.

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 explicit usage scenarios ('when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters') but does not contrast with alternative tools such as 'list_wbs_codes' or 'list_wbs_codes_filter_options'. It lacks guidance on when NOT to use this tool.

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