pyp6xer_work_package_summary

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about leaf-level and data content but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like aggregation or prerequisites beyond the cache_key parameter.

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?

Two concise sentences with clear definition of leaf nodes. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. However, it could mention that it requires a loaded XER file (implied by cache_key) or give a brief note on output structure.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters well (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond the general output scope.

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 summarizes leaf-level WBS nodes (work packages) with schedule and cost data, distinguishing it from broader WBS analysis tools like pyp6xer_wbs_analysis.

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 defines the scope (leaf-level nodes) but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives. Sibling tool names like pyp6xer_wbs_analysis or pyp6xer_progress_summary imply different use cases, but no direct guidance is given.

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