p6_lookahead

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral detail: half-open window [from, to), how open activities use remaining/early dates, exclusion of LOE and WBS summary activities, and deterministic ordering. It omits pagination limits and rate/performance caveats, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It is information-dense with little filler, but delivered as one run-on paragraph mixing return-shape, window math, inclusion rules, and parameter reuse. Front-loading the output keys is helpful; the lack of sentence-level structure makes it harder to scan 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 fully documents the return shape (total, offset, returned, next_offset, rows, window, data_date, counts, schedule_state, note) and the pagination contract (pass next_offset). Combined with window and filtering semantics, an agent has everything needed for correct, paginated invocation.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the burden — and it largely does, explaining from_date time semantics, days/weeks window length, include_in_progress/include_completed filtering effects, wbs_name_contains, the code_* family, fields, and offset (via next_offset). limit and a few optionals are left to the schema, so it compensates well but not completely.

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?

It states a specific operation (a look-ahead window of a project) and precisely enumerates which activities are listed and under what window semantics, which goes well beyond restating the name. It differentiates scope from a general activity query by defining the half-open window and inclusion rules, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with p6_query_activities.

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 context is implied rather than stated: defaults (days=14, include_in_progress, include_completed) and the from_date/data-date fallback are given, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use p6_query_activities instead' routing. The reference to p6_query_activities for shared params hints at the sibling relationship without clarifying when to choose one over the other.

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