Projects Get Project Phase

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context not in annotations: the endpoint is undocumented, may be changed or removed without notice, and the reference only documents PUT and DELETE on that path.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact warning paragraph. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations, and the description covers purpose plus endpoint stability. However, it leaves parameter semantics unexplained and does not explicitly route the agent between this tool, `projects_list_project_phases`, and `projects_update_project_phase`.

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 both required parameters lack documented meaning in the schema. The description only shows them in the route template as path identifiers and does not explain acceptable formats or how to obtain `phase_id`.

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 first sentence clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for a specific project phase.' It distinguishes the single-phase get from the collection-listing route in the warning, though sibling differentiation is not front-loaded as an explicit comparison.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch details for a known phase. The warning notes that `GET /projects/{project_id}/phases` lists phases, which helps distinguish get from list, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use this when' guidance.

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