phase_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key requirement: 'REQUIRES ACTUAL OUTPUT ARTIFACTS with numbered file naming'. This informs the agent of a critical behavioral constraint. It does not cover other aspects like authentication or side effects, but for a recording tool, the given transparency is adequate.

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, efficient sentence. It conveys the essential purpose and a critical requirement without extraneous text. Every word serves a purpose.

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 moderate complexity (nested objects, three required params, no output schema) and the presence of complete schema descriptions, the description covers the core functionality and a key constraint. It is slightly incomplete in explaining the return value, but that is not critical for this tool's use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a minor note about 'numbered file naming' which is also present in the schema. Beyond that, it does not provide additional semantic value, meeting the baseline.

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 purpose: 'Record the output/results when completing a workflow phase'. The verb 'Record' and resource 'output/results' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on output recording rather than guidance or validation.

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 completing a workflow phase and emphasizes mandatory output artifacts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like validate_phase_completion. The guidance is present but incomplete.

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