wrike_get_custom_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not describe the return value, error handling, or any prerequisites. This is minimal transparency for a tool that could fail on invalid IDs or include sensitive data.

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 concise sentence of six words, directly stating the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no fluff, and is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the core purpose but does not mention the return structure or possible failure modes. It is adequate for selection but not thoroughly complete for understanding the full behavior.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'customStatusId' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

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 action (Get), the resource (specific custom status), and the scope (by ID), which differentiates it from sibling tools like wrike_list_custom_statuses (which lists all statuses). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'by ID' provides clear context that this tool is for fetching a single custom status when the ID is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative (e.g., list_custom_statuses for multiple statuses), so it is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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