Inspect phase

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety. The description adds value by detailing exactly what data is returned (goal, exit criteria, constraints, progress, project context), which is beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 front-loads the key items returned. It is efficient and not overly verbose, though it lists several items in a way that could be seen as slightly dense.

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 read-only getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns. It does not mention prerequisites like session existence or activeness, but that is likely handled by the output schema or error messages, so it is reasonably 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 single parameter sessionId is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not elaborate. Baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 indicates this tool retrieves phase-related information for a session: goal, exit criteria, constraints, progress, and project context. It is not a tautology and is distinct from sibling tools focused on sessions or work graphs, though it could be more explicit about the retrieval action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_session or get_work_graph. The description implies it is for inspecting a phase, but there is no explicit context for selection or exclusions.

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