Critical Path

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool computes the critical path and returns the minimal set of tasks, which clarifies the nature of the output and the algorithm's focus.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary verb ('Compute') and the resource ('longest dependency chain to a milestone'). Every phrase adds value, with no filler or redundant information.

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 conveys the core purpose and the high-level result concept, but since there is no output schema, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., list of node IDs, array of tasks, or whether the path length is included). It also omits any prerequisites like the milestone existing in the graph. For a tool with a relatively simple computation, this level is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, with milestone_id described as 'The milestone node ID' and project as 'Optional project identifier.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Compute the longest dependency chain to a milestone') and the resource involved ('milestone'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that merely trace dependencies or find blockers. It also clarifies the result as 'the minimum set of tasks that must complete,' which adds precision.

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 the tool—when a critical path to a milestone is needed—but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like trace_dependencies or find_blockers, nor does it state when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.

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