get_project_wbs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains internal behavior (calling list_work and rebuilding tree) and lists output fields, but does not disclose safety (read-only), rate limits, or potential side effects. For a read operation, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 well-structured with a note, purpose, implementation detail, and output shape. It is succinct without unnecessary repetition. The local/alternative note adds context but is slightly extraneous.

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 no output schema, the description provides a detailed node shape and explains the tree reconstruction logic. Missing details like pagination or error handling, but for a tree-building tool, it covers key aspects adequately.

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 low (33%), but the description adds meaning for project_id by showing its usage in the query. max_depth has schema description. include_milestones is mentioned only in schema with a default; the description does not clarify its effect. Overall, partial compensation.

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 retrieves a project's WBS as a nested, lean tree, differentiating it from a flat hierarchy alternative. It specifies it calls list_work and rebuilds parent/child structure, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear alternative (Beta MCP's getWorkHierarchy) for flat views, implying this tool is for nested views. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like list_work or get_work, leaving some guidance implicit.

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