inquisitor_phase_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states 'Get' without mentioning side effects, read-only nature, required context, or error handling. It does not describe what happens with default session_name or how project_path affects the result, leaving a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotations.

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, grammatically complete sentence, making it highly concise and easy to parse. However, the brevity sacrifices useful detail—it is not bloated, but it lacks enough substance to be considered a fully helpful description. This earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 a simple signature (two optional params) and an output schema (covering return values), but the description lacks domain-specific context about the 'Newton investigation' and the meaning of 'phase.' It also does not explain how parameters affect the outcome, and without annotations, the description is insufficient for complete understanding of when and how to invoke the tool.

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 input schema has two parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description provides no explanation of what project_path or session_name mean. The description adds no semantic value for the parameters, leaving agents unable to determine their purpose or how they influence the retrieval of the phase. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate but does not.

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 the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('the current phase of the Newton investigation'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like phase_set (which sets the phase). The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous, rating a 5 on purpose clarity.

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 this tool is for retrieving the current phase, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as inquisitor_phase_set or inquisitor_analyze. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so usage context is only implied rather than clearly instructed.

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