project_stages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the ordering by SORT, which is a useful detail, but it does not disclose return format, potential side effects (though it is a read operation), or the role of the is_admin parameter. The description is minimal and lacks explicit safety or behavioral 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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant information. It is an example of efficient under-specification, not deficiency.

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 is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), but the lack of annotations and output schema places more burden on the description. The description explains the core functionality and ordering but does not detail return values or any edge cases. It is minimally complete but lacks depth expected for a tool with no annotation support.

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 100%, and both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the purpose of is_admin or format of group_id. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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 the tool's function: getting kanban stages for a project, ordered by SORT. It uses a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (project kanban stages). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the nature of the resource is clear enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional and does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. No context is provided for when this would be preferred over other task/stage-related tools.

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