pyp6xer_work_package_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it summarizes with schedule and cost data, which is helpful but not extensive beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by a clarifying definition, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 the tool has an output schema and simple parameters, the description is sufficient. It might benefit from briefly mentioning what schedule and cost data are included, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that cache_key is set via pyp6xer_load_file and that proj_id accepts short names, extending meaning beyond schema defaults.

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. It defines 'leaf nodes' as WBS elements with no children, distinguishing it from WBS analysis tools that operate on higher levels.

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 usage for leaf-level WBS nodes, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the focus on leaf nodes is sufficient for guided selection.

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