p6_get_activity

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

Goes well beyond the safety annotations by disclosing result-shaping behavior: predecessors/successors and UDFs/notebooks are truncated to the first 50 with count fields, pagination is available via p6_get_relationships, and hours_per_day converts hours to days. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot provide.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose then lists field groups in one dense sentence; every clause maps to a returned element, so little is wasted, though the run-on list is heavy for a single sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly, covering list fields, dates, calendar, WBS, relationships, assignments, codes and UDFs, plus truncation limits. An agent knows what to expect before calling.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with enough detail (Project ID per p6_list_projects, Activity ID task_code). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full detail of one activity') and enumerates the exact field groups returned. It is clearly distinguishable from p6_query_activities (list fields it references) and p6_get_relationships (paging path it references).

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?

Implied usage is clear ('full detail of one activity', with list fields delegated to p6_query_activities), and it explicitly routes the agent to p6_get_relationships when the capped predecessor/successor lists need more. No explicit 'do not use when' or prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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