list_project_phase_definitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function ('List available... definitions') without revealing whether the list is global or project-specific, whether authentication is required, how results are paginated, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and does not add behavioral traits beyond the name itself.

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, focused sentence that starts with the verb 'List' and immediately identifies the resource. Every word contributes meaningful context, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with zero parameters.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description adequately communicates its core purpose and allows correct invocation. However, it lacks explicit disambiguation from related tools such as get_project_phase_definition, and it does not hint at the response format or whether definitions are system-wide or project-scoped. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete but could add a phrase to clarify its relationship to phases or definitions.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the guideline, 0 params results in a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies that invocation requires no arguments.

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 a list operation ('List') targeting a specific resource ('project lifecycle phase definitions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_phase_definition (which retrieves a single definition) and list_project_sprints (which lists a different resource). The scope ('available ... exposed by OpenProject') adds useful context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool to enumerate definitions, nor does it suggest using get_project_phase_definition for a specific definition. The only implicit clue is the verb 'list', but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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