get_project_phase_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get' without clarifying that this is a read-only operation, that it returns a single object, or any potential errors. It does not add context beyond the action itself, leaving behavioral expectations undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema defines the structure, and there are no complex behaviors or side effects to disclose for a simple fetch-by-id operation.

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% (no descriptions in schema properties), so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by id' clarifies that the sole parameter is the identifier, but it does not elaborate on the id's origin, format, or relationship to other entities. This is minimally sufficient but adds little beyond the parameter name 'phase_definition_id'.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a precise resource ('single project lifecycle phase definition') and explicitly mentions retrieval by id. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_project_phase_definitions (which lists all) and get_project_phase (which likely retrieves a different entity).

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 usage when you have a specific phase_definition_id, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, fitting the 'implied usage' category.

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