get_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 discloses the return contents but does not mention side effects, read-only nature, prerequisites, or error behavior. Since 'Get' weakly implies read-only, it doesn't explicitly confirm safety or provide operational context.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs without any fluff. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the main return elements (progress summary, percentages, statuses, blocking reasons). It omits detailed output structure but is adequate for a simple getter with low complexity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions ('phase' with 'Specific phase name to inspect (omit for all phases)'), so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('phase progress summary'), and enumerates the contents: completion percentages, gate statuses, and blocking reasons. It is well-differentiated from siblings like get_graph_state or get_ready_tasks by focusing on phase-level status.

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 implies when to use—when phase progress details are needed—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on how this compares to get_graph_state or get_ready_tasks, though the specificity of 'phase progress' gives some contextual hint.

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