p6_list_wbs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: pagination via next_offset, the definition of 'open' (not completed, LOE and WBS summary excluded), units_pct as actual/at-completion per P6, and the meaning of root/unplaced. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with purpose and page shape, which is good, but the body is a single dense run-on sentence covering output fields, rollup definitions, and parameter behavior with minimal structural separation. It is information-dense rather than padded, yet harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 must explain return values, and it does thoroughly (page envelope, row fields, rollup fields). It leaves out failure behavior (e.g. an unknown parent code) and there is no output schema to fall back on, so it is strong but not exhaustive for a 6-parameter tool.

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 50%; limit/offset are documented in-schema, but parent, max_depth, and rollups carry no schema description. The description compensates well, defining the accepted parent formats ('full or relative to the project node'), max_depth semantics, and what rollups=True actually adds to each row.

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 ('WBS tree'), the exact ordering guarantee ('each node before its children'), and the paginated shape. An agent can tell it apart from p6_list_projects or p6_query_activities without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied through parameter semantics: 'parent= starts at that WBS code' and 'max_depth counts levels below the start node' suggest scoping, and rollups=True suggests wanting subtree aggregates. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings like p6_query_activities or p6_project_summary.

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