List ProdPad Statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return value is a set of IDs consumed by idea filtering/status-setting, which is mildly useful context but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the tool name imply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the practical use of the result. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description gives enough for correct invocation and tells the agent what the returned IDs are for. A brief note on the shape of returned items would fully close the gap, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly indicates a plain enumeration with no filtering arguments. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all idea workflow statuses in ProdPad') with clear scope. No sibling tool covers status listing, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from the many list_/get_ siblings.

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 second sentence gives concrete downstream usage ('Use these IDs when filtering ideas or setting idea status'), which tells the agent why it would call this tool. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not condition, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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