simpleinout_list_my_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds value by specifying the API endpoint (GET /users/my/statuses) and the required date-range filter, implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or error behavior, but for a simple list tool with an output schema, this is acceptable 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 compact and focused, with no wasted words. Each line serves a purpose: stating the action, providing the API endpoint, and explaining the required parameter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter format, and API reference. It does not discuss alternatives or edge cases, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 schema only defines created_at as a string with no additional meaning. The description fully compensates by explaining it is a date/time range filter and providing an explicit format example ('1523854800..1524459599'), making the parameter semantics clear.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('status history'), and the scope ('current authenticated user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_statuses or list_user_statuses. The verb+resource structure is explicit and unambiguous.

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 indicates this tool is for the current authenticated user's status history within a date range, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention cases where sibling tools like list_user_statuses should be preferred.

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