list_workitem_statuses

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description must add behavioral context. It does not say whether results are ordered, whether status flows are complete or partial, or what 'status flow' means operationally. Apart from the phrase '状态流', it adds almost nothing beyond the purpose statement and the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the action and scope immediately. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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 and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% schema description coverage on two parameters and the ambiguous 'or' between category and type, the description leaves a real gap about how the parameters combine and which one is mandatory.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does hint at a hierarchy by saying '大类或类型' (category or type), which loosely maps to the category and workitem_type_id parameters, but the connective '或' (or) suggests either/or while the schema always requires category and treats workitem_type_id as optional. It never explains the ID format or how the two parameters interact.

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 (列出/list) and a clearly bounded resource (可用状态流/available status flows) scoped to a work item category or type. This is distinguishable from siblings such as list_workitem_types and list_workitem_fields. It stops short of naming an alternative or explicitly contrasting itself with those 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?

Use context is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs the status flow for a given category or type. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the work item type must already exist.

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