next_phase

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action, missing the fact that the caller must provide the next phase name via 'phase_name', which contradicts the phrase 'in sequence' (implying automatic advancement). It also does not mention side effects like whether tasks in the completed phase are closed, whether the advance is reversible, or how the 'description' parameter affects the next phase. This leaves significant ambiguity for a state-changing operation.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. No wasted words or filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the primary action.

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 is relatively simple, but the description leaves gaps: the need for an explicit next phase name despite 'in sequence', interaction with sibling phase tools (complete_phase, set_phase), and the role of 'path' (though defaulted). With an output schema present, return values need not be described, but the behavioral gaps and potential for misuse keep it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%: each parameter (path, phase_name, description) has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify the relationship between 'in sequence' and the required 'phase_name' parameter, which would be valuable.

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 uses specific verbs ('mark', 'advance') and identifies the resource ('phase'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like complete_phase (which only completes) and set_phase (which sets without advancing). The action is unambiguous and directly names the sequence behavior.

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 want to complete the current phase and move to the next in sequence. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like complete_phase or set_phase, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions (e.g., that the current phase must exist). The guidance is clear but not explicit about when to choose this over siblings.

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