Show Project WBS Segment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little beyond confirming it returns a JSON object and requires specific parameters. No contradiction 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: first identifies the tool, second states usage, third describes return type, fourth lists required parameters, fifth gives API context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 there is no output schema, the description mentions the return is a JSON object, but does not detail fields. It compensates by providing the API endpoint and grouping. For a simple read operation, this is largely sufficient, though more detail on the response structure could help.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explicitly naming the two required parameters (project_id, id) and providing the full endpoint URL, which aids understanding 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 tool fetches full details of a specific Work Breakdown Structure segment by its identifier. It uses specific verbs ('show', 'fetch') and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_project_wbs_segments.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to fetch details of a specific WBS segment by identifier, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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