list_states

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 the obvious 'list' action without covering return format, ordering, pagination, error conditions, or any prerequisites like project existence. This is insufficient for a read operation with no additional 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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose without wasted text.

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 one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately states the core action, but lacks details about the response structure or any behavioral nuances. Without annotations or output schema, more contextual information would improve completeness.

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% since the project_id parameter is documented as 'Project UUID'. The description's 'for a project' reaffirms the parameter's role but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already fully describes the parameter.

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's function: 'List workflow states for a project.' The verb 'list' and resource 'workflow states' are specific, and the scope 'for a project' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_labels or list_projects.

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 implies usage whenever workflow states need to be retrieved for a project, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Given the sibling tools, the context is clear but understated.

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