list_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return format. For a list operation, this lack of transparency leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, its extreme brevity is a trade-off that omits valuable context, so it is not a perfect score.

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 description is minimal and lacks important context such as the required project_id parameter and clarification of what 'estados' includes. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the usage context remains incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the project_id parameter or its purpose. The schema only provides a title 'Project Id', which is insufficient. With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate but failed to add any parameter semantics.

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 'Lista estados (colunas) de um projeto' clearly uses a specific verb ('Lista' = lists) and identifies the resource ('estados' / columns of a project). It distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_labels, list_cycles, etc.) by specifying this unique resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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