get_current_phase

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action without revealing any additional behavior, such as what happens when no phase is active, how the optional 'path' parameter influences results, or whether the operation is read-only. The description essentially mirrors the purpose without adding behavioral nuances.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant information, and the key information is front-loaded. It earns its place by clearly identifying the tool's action and target.

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 tool has a simple interface (one optional parameter) and an output schema, which likely describes the return structure, so the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings and omits behavioral edge cases (e.g., no active phase). The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description still feels incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it in all situations.

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 one parameter ('path') with a description 'Project root directory' and a default of '.', providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any further meaning to this parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3. The parameter's purpose is adequately documented by the schema alone.

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 function: 'Get the current active phase and its status.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current active phase'), and the inclusion of 'status' adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_phases (which lists all phases) and set_phase (which changes the phase).

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 by stating it retrieves the current active phase, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_phases or next_phase. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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