list_phases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral details such as whether a path must exist, scope of 'all phases', or file system dependencies beyond the schema's path parameter.

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?

One sentence with zero waste, directly conveying the function and output scope.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention that phases are listed from a project root (hinted by the path parameter), but the schema covers this, so the description is adequate in context.

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 schema provides full documentation for the single optional 'path' parameter, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema_description_coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('List') and resource ('all phases'), and further clarifies the output includes status types (completed, active, pending), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_milestones.

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 you need to see phases and their statuses, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_current_phase or set_phase, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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