alga_projects_phases_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond the annotations — 'This list is not paginated' — telling the agent it receives the complete result set and need not handle paging. It does not mention ordering, empty-result behavior, or permission requirements, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the pagination note. Every sentence adds 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the key result-shape fact (unpaginated). Only the parameter's format expectations and the returned fields' identity are left implicit, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does little: 'in a project' only loosely connects to the single project_id parameter. It says nothing about the accepted identifier format, length limits, or whether an unknown project_id errors or returns an empty list, all of which the schema leaves undocumented.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and scope: 'List all phases in a project.' This distinguishes it from alga_projects_list and alga_projects_tasks_list by naming 'phases' rather than projects or tasks. It stops short of an explicit contrast with sibling tools, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite beyond the implied project_id, and no mention of when another tool (e.g., a tasks list) would be the better choice. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the phrase 'in a project'.

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