list_project_phase_definitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation but omits details like whether authentication is required, if pagination applies, or what the output structure is. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 zero parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides the minimal necessary information. However, it lacks context on what the returned definitions contain, whether they are global or per-project, and any memory constraints. It is functional but could be slightly more informative.

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 zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline of 4 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage and no need for additional parameter clarification.

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 lists 'available project lifecycle phase definitions' exposed by OpenProject. The verb 'list' and resource 'phase definitions' are specific, and the tool is distinguishable from siblings like get_project_phase_definition which retrieves a single definition.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. For a listing tool without parameters, it could mention that it returns all definitions or that it is a read-only operation.

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