list_states

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the outputs (UUIDs, names, groups) and the intended prerequisite workflow, but does not disclose behavior for omitted project_id, pagination, or ordering. It adds some context but not fully rich behavioral detail.

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-loads the core function, and provides actionable workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main purpose and use case. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and it addresses the key workflow need (mapping status names to UUIDs).

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 has one parameter, project_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description implies its meaning by saying 'a project's states,' but does not explicitly explain the parameter or the default/null behavior. It provides marginal compensation beyond the parameter name.

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 tool's function: 'List a project's states (statuses) with their UUIDs, names, and groups.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the mapping use case.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this first to map a status name like "In Progress" to its UUID before creating/updating work items.' This gives a clear when-to-use context, though it does not mention alternative tools like find_state for searching a single state.

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