List statuses

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'configured on this instance' indicates instance-level data, but the description does not explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior, permissions, or return format. This is a minor gap for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 efficient sentences: the first states the core operation, the second gives a practical use case. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and when to invoke it. It could add more detail about the returned status shape, but that is not essential for deciding to call the tool; no critical information 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing about parameters needs to be explained; all schema properties are already covered.

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 the specific action ('List') and exact resource ('work package statuses configured on this instance'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_projects and list_types because it names the resource. No ambiguity.

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?

Provides a concrete trigger scenario: when a question names a status and the agent needs to verify whether it exists. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it, but given the resource-specific siblings, the context is clear enough. This is adequate usage guidance.

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