phabricator_phid_query

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add the useful signal that the result is a lightweight handle rather than a full object, but says nothing about batch behavior, how unknown or malformed PHIDs are handled, or result ordering.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the routing hint follows immediately.

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-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is nearly enough: the return fields are enumerated and the escalation path is named. The remaining hole is the unaddressed phabricator_phid_lookup overlap, which matters because the two tools look interchangeable from their names alone.

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 has a single parameter ('phids') at 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's plural phrasing hints at batch usage but adds no format, size-limit, or error semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get handle information... for PHIDs') and enumerates the returned fields (name, URI, type, status), which is more than the title provides. It partially separates itself from siblings by naming the application-specific search tools, but leaves the very similarly named phabricator_phid_lookup sibling undistinguished.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not rule and names alternatives ('For full object data, use application-specific search tools (e.g., phabricator_task_search, phabricator_revision_search)'). What's missing is any guidance on when to pick this over phabricator_phid_lookup, which an agent scanning the sibling list will inevitably weigh against it.

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