anon_get_stages

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: member-only access, stages sorted by ascending order, and the meaning of currentStageIndex (-1 when all complete). It also clarifies that the project is resolved from the API key, so no projectId is required.

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 content is dense and front-loaded: purpose, access, return semantics, then endpoint. The explicit 'GET /api/projects/{id}/stages' line is mildly redundant with the tool name but confirms the path; otherwise every sentence carries weight.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the key return semantics (ordering and currentStageIndex). Combined with the access note and zero-parameter clarification, an agent has what it needs, though not every returned field is described.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explaining that the project is auto-determined by the API key and no projectId should be passed, which prevents a caller from inventing a parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('列出项目阶段' / list project stages), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like anon_get_stage_signups or anon_get_stage_rundowns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

'项目成员可访问' gives an access precondition, which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as anon_get_project or anon_get_stage_signups, leaving usage to inference.

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