Get Project Statuses

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

The description adds the ordering behavior (newest first) and the return type (array of status objects), which are not captured by the read-only/idempotent annotations. It also clarifies the domain concept of health check-ins, adding context beyond the safety profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and effective.

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 list tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the ordering, the domain meaning, and the return shape. The schema covers pagination and field selection, and annotations cover safety, so no critical information is missing.

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%, so all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the tool lists all status updates for a project, ordered newest first, and explains what status updates are (health check-ins with green/yellow/red). This distinguishes it from the singular get_project_status sibling and other project 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?

The description provides clear context by explaining that status updates are periodic health check-ins visible in the project's status tab, implying when this list tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use the singular status getter.

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