phase_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the per-phase item table is deprecated and frozen, and advises reading the header line first, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not explain the output format beyond the header, nor whether the operation is read-only or if there are any side effects.

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 brief (two sentences) but not well-structured. The first sentence is a fragment and cryptic, while the second provides essential context. It is not front-loaded with a clear action statement, and the phrasing is awkward, though it is compact.

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 is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain the meaning of 'phase' or the distinction between 'live' and 'deprecated' records. It hints at a header line but does not describe the actual return data, making it hard for an agent to predict the tool's output or use it correctly.

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%, and the description ignores the two parameters (save, world). It adds no meaning to their purpose, default behavior, or allowed values. The description is entirely about data semantics, leaving parameter semantics completely unexplained.

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 hints that the tool shows Space Elevator requirements, distinguishing live and deprecated records, but it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'returns', 'lists') and does not clearly state what the tool does. It is somewhat differentiated from siblings by focusing on Space Elevator phases, but the purpose remains vague.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The only implied context is that the per-phase table is deprecated, but it does not tell the user when this tool is appropriate.

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