clokio_get_project_statuses

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the result is an ordered set of statuses a task may become, which is helpful given no output schema, but it does not explain what 'resolved' means, how ordering is determined, or any error/auth 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 a single, tightly worded sentence with the core meaning front-loaded and a useful parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what will be returned: an ordered, project-specific set of statuses. It could be more explicit about what 'resolved' means and how statuses are represented, but the combination of annotations, schema, and description is largely sufficient.

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 only parameter, project_id, is self-explanatory from its name and integer type, and the description's 'A project's...' wording ties it to the parameter. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema, so it provides no additional parameter semantics.

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 identifies a project-scoped, ordered set of possible task statuses, and the parenthetical explains what the set represents. It distinguishes this from the global clokio_list_task_statuses sibling by emphasizing 'project's' and 'in this project'. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and uses the somewhat jargon-y term 'resolved', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The project-scoped wording implies this tool is for statuses specific to a project rather than a global status list, which is a useful signal next to clokio_list_task_statuses. But the description never explicitly names an alternative or states when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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