Get the procedure for a methodology phase

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

The description explicitly states 'the server reads no files', indicating a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It also describes the return shape and source. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds details without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return shape and source. It explains both parameters well. Missing details like error handling or behavior without facts, but for the tool's simplicity it is adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the enum values for 'phase' and explaining that 'facts' can tailor the output, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 returns the ordered procedure for the current methodology phase. It specifies the exact phases and distinguishes itself as 'the procedure half of advisor + validator', differentiating from sibling tools like validate_artifact.

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 says to supply 'phase' (with enumerated values) and optional 'facts' to tailor output. It provides context that this is the procedure half, implying use over validation tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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