阶段列表

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a listing tool, so the description is not contradicting annotations. It adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that omitting projectId broadens the result set to all projects. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume, which for an all-projects listing could be large.

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?

One sentence with the core action first and the conditional scoping second; nothing redundant or padded.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint already covering safety and no output schema required, the description is nearly sufficient. Only return-shape and volume expectations are left implicit, which is minor for a simple list.

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 must carry the meaning of projectId — and it does, spelling out the default behavior when the parameter is absent. This is the key semantic an agent needs and it is supplied clearly, though format/source of projectId values is not explained.

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+resource ('列出项目阶段') that unambiguously identifies the phase-listing operation. The parenthetical clarifies scope (all projects when unfiltered). It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the 'phase' resource is distinct enough from project.list/todo.list that confusion risk is low.

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 parenthetical implies when to pass projectId versus omit it, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over project.list or phase.status.set, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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