List statuses

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the distinction between the plain-string `statusCategory` here and the nested object on issues, plus the scope semantics of omitting `projectId`. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and purpose, the second clarifies the critical parameter trap, and the third warns about a tricky data-shape difference. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential call context: what is listed, how to narrow it, and a key type caveat. It does not describe the full response shape or pagination, but the described fields and caveats are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces that `projectId` is numeric and not a key, but this duplicates the schema. It adds little new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('workflow statuses') and enumerates the key fields returned (id, name, category, scope). It also gives a concrete use case with JQL, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools like jira_list_fields or jira_list_project_roles.

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 clearly conveys when to call this tool: to verify that status names used in JQL actually exist on the site. The `projectId` narrowing behavior is explained, but there is no explicit exclusion or mention of alternatives, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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