rm_get_project_phase

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations and does not contradict them. It adds no behavioral detail beyond those annotations, such as return shape, permission needs, or error cases, though the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The verb and target resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 low complexity, the read-only annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. It leaves alternative routing and parameter-relationship details implicit, but these are minor for a simple getter that requires exactly two IDs.

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 needs to compensate for the bare parameters, but it does not explain project_id or phase_id. The parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, yet the description adds no meaning about their relationship, accepted formats, or why both are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('project phase'), and singular granularity ('a specific project phase'). This distinguishes it from collection siblings like rm_list_project_phases and mutation siblings like rm_create_project_phase or rm_delete_project_phase.

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 wording implies use when a single phase's details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer rm_list_project_phases for enumerating phases or when not to use this tool. Alternatives are left to inference rather than stated.

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