autotask_list_ticket_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 indicates this is a read operation ('List') and hints at its output being reference data for other operations. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage context, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and why to use it, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or system constraints, which could be helpful for an AI agent despite the low complexity.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is assigned as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available ticket statuses in Autotask'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on ticket statuses rather than other entities like companies, contacts, or tickets themselves.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'to find status values for filtering or creating tickets.' This gives practical guidance on its purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the context implies it's for reference rather than mutation.

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