clokio_list_task_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns status slugs with an is_open flag and that the vocabulary is organisation-wide including project-specific slugs, which goes beyond the annotation-only signal.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the resource and data shape, and the second provides the intended usage context. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only lookup, the description is largely complete: it states what data is returned (status slugs with is_open, including project-specific slugs) and why it should be used. It does not define is_open semantics or enumerate slugs, but the low complexity does not demand more.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description reinforces that the tool is a lookup with no inputs and explains what the returned vocabulary contains, which is enough for a parameterless tool.

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 resource (the organisation-wide task-status vocabulary) and a precise use (discovering valid status slugs before creating/updating a task). It also clarifies scope by noting it includes project-specific slugs, which helps distinguish it from a per-project status tool.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: before creating or updating a task, to discover valid status slugs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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