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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. Beyond that, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: the fixed group taxonomy (TRIAGE/BACKLOG/ACTIVE/DONE/CANCELED) and the key invariant that groups are stable across workspaces while names are customisable.

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 definition is densely front-loaded: it states the resource, the return ordering, the group taxonomy, the stability caveat, and the routing pointer in a compact set of sentences. The parenthetical group codes are load-bearing rather than filler, though the sentence is fairly long.

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 read-only list with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is returned (statuses, their names, their groups and ordering) and how to reason about the values. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% for the single workspace parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description only alludes to workspace scoping indirectly ('this workspace's changes') without adding format or override details.

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 names a specific verb and resource — listing the change statuses of a workspace — and clarifies that they come back in board order. It also distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling compass_opportunities_set_status, so an agent can pick this tool without ambiguity.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance on how to interpret and use the returned values (names when talking to people, groups when reasoning about progress) and routes the agent to compass_opportunities_set_status for the mutating counterpart. It stops short of an explicit when-to-call-this-vs-another-list-tool exclusion, but the context is clear.

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