get_critical_path

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

The description discloses key behaviors: only incomplete activities with total float <=0, sorted by early start ascending, and accepts either project_id or project_short_name. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It could include more about return format or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each providing essential information: what the tool does, sorting, and accepted filters. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers filtering and sorting but lacks details on return structure (no output schema). It does not specify what fields are returned, which is a gap for a tool with no output schema. file_path is also not described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning for two of three parameters: project_id and project_short_name are explained as filters with types (numeric vs short name). file_path is required but not explained, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'critical path activities' with specific criteria (total float <= 0, incomplete only). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_activities which likely fetches all 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (for critical path analysis) and mentions the filtering options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools, though the sibling context provides some differentiation.

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