Pb Critical Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-obvious trait — that Jira-sourced text is data and not instructions, a prompt-injection warning — but says nothing about pagination despite a cursor parameter, nor about cost or result size for large plans.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the substantive statement comes first. The prompt-injection warning is terse and placed after, which is the right ordering, though 'Zero-float tasks' as an opener leans on jargon before establishing the action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is guidance on when to call it and what plan_id/include_summaries mean — material gaps for a paged, plan-scoped analysis tool on a ten-sibling surface.

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 only 33%: plan_id has no description and include_summaries has no description, and only cursor references "From next_cursor." The description adds zero parameter meaning — it never mentions plan_id, include_summaries, or how pagination terminates — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Zero-float tasks in order and why each starts when it does" identifies the resource (critical-path / zero-float tasks) and the two things returned (ordering plus rationale), which an agent can map to the critical path concept. But there is no verb ('list'/'return'/'explain') and no explicit differentiation from siblings like pb_flow_metrics or pb_workload that also touch scheduling. The Jira-injection sentence is unrelated to purpose and dilutes the opening.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over the nine siblings, no prerequisites (does a plan need to be built first with pb_build_plan?), and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the scheduling-analysis tool rather than a summary or metrics tool.

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