read_states

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: team sub-workflow states are flagged isTeamWorkflow, and for a card, both its current state and team states are included. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 sentences, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful behavioral nuance without repeating schema or annotation information.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it defines scope, mentions team-state inclusion, and signals the isTeamWorkflow flag. It does not clarify the behavior when no parameters are provided, but that is a minor gap given the clear card-vs-entity-type framing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between the card id and its own project's process, and between entity type and project, clarifying when type/project parameters are relevant.

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 identifies the resource ('states') and the two contexts it applies to: a card or an entity type in a project. It is specific and scoped, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling read tools such as read_card or read_meta.

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 explicitly states the two valid usage contexts: states for a card or states for an entity type in a project. It gives clear context but does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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