testmo_list_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a mapping of id to name and gives examples, but it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as read-only guarantees, ordering, or potential absence of statuses. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core function and then adding a practical rationale. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool, the description provides the essential context: what it lists, the format (id→name), and why it matters. Since there is no output schema, the description partially covers return values. It does not discuss edge cases or project-specific variations, but those are minor for this simple tool.

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 already documents project_id as 'Project ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds context by tying project_id to the project whose statuses are listed, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specifies the tool's function: listing result statuses for a project, with a concrete id-to-name mapping and examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like testmo_list_runs or testmo_list_results by focusing on statuses and explicitly connecting to the action of recording a result.

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 gives a clear usage context: it is needed to determine the correct status_id when recording a result, thus implicitly directing when to use this tool (before testmo_record_result). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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