Get project phase

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: there is no phases index, ids only come from work package references, phase dates are not exposed, and a 404 covers three distinct error cases. These details meaningfully help an agent anticipate tool behavior and failure modes.

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 well-structured with an initial summary, a usage trigger, a pitfalls section, and cross-references. Every sentence carries unique information; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content. The length is justified by the tool's edge cases.

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 description covers the return shape, the prerequisite data source, alternative tools, and the full meaning of a 404 error. Combined with a rich output schema and strong annotations, this description leaves no significant gap for an agent to misuse 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 already provides 100% coverage and explicitly warns that phase_id is "NOT a definition id from list_project_phase_definitions." The description reinforces this by stating ids only come from work packages' project_phase references. This adds contextual value over the schema alone, though most semantic weight is carried by the schema's own description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Read one project's phase record: name, active flag and its definition." It clearly scopes the tool to a single phase record and lists the exact fields returned, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from broader list/search siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: "Use it after get_work_package surfaced a project_phase reference..." It also gives a when-not-to-use by pointing to list_projects(in_phase=...) for date-based phase queries and cross-references list_project_phase_definitions for the catalog. This is textbook usage guidance.

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