Projects List Project Phases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination, ordering, or result-size behavior, and no indication of what happens when the project has no phases.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely concise-and-complete.

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 simple read-only list tool, the output schema covers return values and the annotations cover the safety profile, so little is strictly required. Still, with 0% parameter coverage and no pagination or empty-result guidance, the description is minimum viable rather than complete.

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 single project_id parameter accepts anyOf integer/string with no explanation in either place. The phrase 'belonging to a project' hints that project_id is the parent project, but adds no format or type guidance, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (phases) scoped to a parent project, which separates it from projects_list_projects and the singular projects_get_project_phase. It stops short of naming any sibling or spelling out the distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as projects_get_project_phase for a single phase. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'belonging'.

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