Runn: list phases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that without projectId, the tool lists phases across all projects, which is a potentially large result set. It also exposes the REST endpoint. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default page size, or whether fetchAll caps results, though these are in parameter descriptions. The scoping behavior is a useful addition, but not fully comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('List project phases') and then adds necessary scoping details. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and scoping. It is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool does and how to use projectId. Pagination details are left to the parameter descriptions, which is acceptable. A minor gap is not mentioning that the tool supports pagination in the description, but the schema covers this, so overall it is quite 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly stating the behavior when projectId is absent (lists phases across all projects) and providing the REST endpoint for the project-scoped query. This clarifies the default semantics in a way the schema description does not fully convey, so it earns a 4.

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 lists project phases, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('phases'). It distinguishes between two scopes: with projectId, it lists that project's phases; without it, lists all projects' phases. This differentiates it from sibling list tools like runn_list_milestones or runn_list_assignments.

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 gives clear context on when to include projectId vs omit it, effectively providing usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the scoping guidance is useful. This is clear context without exclusions, fitting a score of 4.

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