status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is reported (phase and task progress) but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the output format looks like. This is a minimal disclosure, insufficient for a clear behavioral understanding.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the core purpose. It earns top marks for efficiency and structure.

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, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description must provide a complete mental model. It only mentions what is reported, not how to call it, what to expect in return, or any prerequisites. For a simple one-param tool it is minimal but not fully adequate, warranting a 2.

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% and the description does not explain the project_id parameter beyond what the property name implies. The agent gets no guidance on the format, requirements, or how to obtain a valid project_id, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'report' and the resource 'a project's current phase and task progress', making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like health or start_project. It does not confuse with other tools, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5 because it lacks an explicit comparison to siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or health. The context of when to invoke status vs. others is left entirely to the agent's inference, so this dimension scores low.

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