get-phase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'detailed information' but gives no specifics about what that entails, side effects, or permissions needed. The agent cannot infer the tool's safety or behavioral traits.

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 8-word sentence, which is concise but lacks any structural elements like examples or key details. It is not verbose, but it is too sparse to be considered well-crafted.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what 'detailed information' includes. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. Additionally, no context is provided on how to obtain a valid 'phase_id', making the tool less actionable.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'phase_id', so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor detracts from the parameter documentation.

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 that the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific phase, using the verb 'Get' and the resource 'phase'. This distinguishes it from list-style tools like 'list-phases', though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' tools such as 'get-phase-schedule'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'list-phases', 'get-active-phases', and 'get-phases-by-date-range', the agent receives no context for choosing this specific tool.

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