redmine_issue_statuses

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states it's a read operation, but fails to mention pagination (via 'limit' and 'max_pages' parameters), filtering capabilities ('query'), or the nature of the response. More detail is needed for transparent behavior.

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 extremely concise at one short sentence. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It earns its place by stating the core function, but lacks structure to present additional context.

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?

Given the complexity of 5 parameters including nested objects and pagination, and with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, filtering, or pagination behavior. Crucial context is missing for an agent to use the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 40%, meaning most parameters lack schema descriptions. The tool description adds no explanation of parameters like 'limit' or 'max_pages'. While the schema provides basic constraints, the description does not add meaning beyond what's already in the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 specifies 'Read issue statuses: list.' which clearly indicates the tool reads and lists issue statuses. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'redmine_issues' which may also involve statuses, but the resource is distinct enough.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or differences from siblings such as 'redmine_issues' or 'redmine_enumerations'.

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