list_workflow_statuses

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains what data represents (progression stages) but discloses no API behavior: no mention of idempotency, caching, rate limits, error handling, or return structure. 'List' implies read-only but doesn't confirm safety or scope.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with minimal redundancy. 'Workflow/pipeline' is slightly redundant, and 'Shows' is weaker than 'Returns,' but overall efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. No structural waste.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage. Explains the domain concept (workflow statuses) but misses the location filtering aspect and lacks output description (though no output schema exists to constrain it). Acceptable but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context (doesn't mention locationId or the env var fallback), but the schema adequately documents the single optional parameter without requiring supplementary description.

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?

Clear verb 'List' and specific resource 'workflow/pipeline status stages'. The phrase 'progression stages work orders move through' effectively clarifies this returns status taxonomy/metadata rather than actual orders, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_orders. Deducts one point for not explicitly naming the distinction from order-listing tools.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. Does not explain typical use cases (e.g., fetching statuses to populate a dropdown filter) or prerequisites (e.g., needing location context). Purely descriptive without prescriptive guidance.

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