List Wbs Codes Filters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds context by stating it returns a paginated JSON array, includes pagination metadata, and specifies the API endpoint. This adds value beyond annotations but is not extensive, resulting in a mid-range score.

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 the core purpose: 'List Wbs Code Filters for a given project.' It efficiently covers use case, pagination, and required parameters without extraneous details. The inclusion of the API endpoint may be helpful for developers but is not essential for an agent, so a minor deduction.

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 tool has rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the core functionality, pagination, and required parameters. However, it lacks details about the response structure or the meaning of 'filters' in the context of WBS codes. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description, but the description only mentions 'JSON array of Work Breakdown Structure records', which is minimally sufficient.

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% with all four parameters having descriptions. The description mentions page and per_page for pagination, which aligns with the schema but does not add new meaning. Since the schema already explains each parameter well, the description provides no additional semantic value, hence a baseline score of 3.

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 it lists Work Breakdown Structure records for a given project, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'WBS Code Filters'. However, the name includes 'filters' while the description says it enumerates records, creating slight ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_wbs_codes' by mentioning 'filters' and paginated overview, but the lack of explicit differentiation lowers the score.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters'. It mentions required parameters (company_id, project_id) and pagination control (page, per_page). However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some gaps in decision support.

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