Zephyr: Get Statuses

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable runtime behavior: the server may enforce a lower maxResults limit, the result set may be truncated, and callers should verify the maxResults value in the response. It also documents the startAt/maxResults relationship, which is useful beyond the annotation metadata.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with its purpose, but it duplicates much of the input schema's parameter documentation, including the full maxResults caveat verbatim. The three examples are useful, but the expected-output lines are vague ('with their details'), making the text longer than necessary without proportionally increasing clarity.

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?

With zero required parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations declaring the tool read-only and idempotent, the description fills the remaining gaps effectively. It explains defaults, filtering options, pagination/truncation behavior, and provides representative examples, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including defaults, the enum values, and the server-limit caveat for maxResults. The description largely restates those schema definitions, and while the examples show useful filter combinations, they do not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get statuses of different types of test artifacts in Zephyr,' which clearly identifies a distinct resource among the Zephyr getter tools. The statusType enum values (TEST_CASE, TEST_PLAN, TEST_CYCLE, TEST_EXECUTION) and the 'Toolset: Statuses' label further differentiate it from sibling tools like zephyr_get_priorities or zephyr_get_test_cycles.

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its examples create clear usage context: a default listing, filtering by statusType, and filtering by projectKey. This is sufficient for an agent to recognize when this read-only status lookup is the appropriate call, though no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided.

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