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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the returned fields (id, nombre, type, team) and the credential-derived default workspace, which is genuine behavioral context. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether results are scoped per team.

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?

Three compact sentences: what is returned first, why the tool exists second, parameter behavior third. No filler or redundant restatement of the name. Slightly denser than needed but every clause carries information the agent uses.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, return fields, the one parameter, and the default. The only residual gaps are ordering/pagination of the list, which are minor for a small reference set.

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 0% for the single workspaceId parameter, so the description must carry it — and it does: it marks the parameter optional, defines it as the workspace to operate in, explains the credential fallback, and routes the agent to list_workspaces for enumeration. That fully compensates for the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Lista los workflow states") and enumerates what each entry carries (id, nombre, type, team), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also ties the tool to its downstream consumer (obtaining stateId for creating or changing issue state), which implicitly separates it from change_issue_state, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a concrete trigger ("Necesario para obtener el stateId al crear o cambiar de estado una issue") and points to list_workspaces as the way to discover a valid workspaceId. It also states the fallback behavior when the parameter is omitted. There is no explicit "do not use when" guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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