get_current_phase_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the action as 'Get' and 'provides information', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or any limitations. Since an output schema exists, the return value description is redundant, and no additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what the name implies.

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 concise with two sentences and separate Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the Args section is unnecessary since the schema has no properties and might cause confusion about a 'ctx' parameter that isn't in the schema. This prevents a perfect score, but overall it is efficiently written.

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?

This is a simple getter with no parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and it does not differentiate from a similar sibling tool. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but has clear gaps in contextual completeness.

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 zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description mentions an 'Args: ctx' section, which is not present in the schema, but this is likely a standard MCP context argument that is not user-supplied. The description does not add much beyond the schema since there are no parameters to explain, but it does not detract significantly.

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's function: getting the current phase status and completion progress. It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_threat_model_progress', which might have overlapping functionality. Thus, it earns 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_threat_model_progress' or 'get_threat_modeling_plan'. The only context is the purpose statement, which implicitly suggests use for checking phase status, but no explicit usage guidance is given.

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