paymo_list_workflow_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists the returned fields and does not mention any behavioral traits such as cost, pagination behavior, or side effects. The input schema contains some behavioral notes, but the description itself lacks this context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and a key use case. There is no redundant information, and every part 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?

The tool is simple, with clear purpose and well-documented parameters. The description also lists the output fields and use case, making it reasonably complete despite the lack of annotations. It could mention pagination or side effects, but these are not critical for understanding this tool.

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%, with detailed descriptions for limit, offset, and verbose. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 workflow statuses in Paymo, with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'workflow statuses'. It also notes the returned fields and a concrete use case, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools which deal with tasks, projects, or timers.

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 gives a specific use case ('map status_id to a human name') which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the sibling context makes it clear this is the only status-listing tool, so the guidance is adequate.

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