List Status Filter Options

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. Description adds that the tool returns a JSON array and requires project_id, but does not disclose pagination behavior beyond schema parameters. No contradictions with 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?

Description is relatively concise but contains redundancy: it twice states it returns a list/array of available filter values. The usage sentence is slightly off-target. Could be streamlined to avoid repetition and improve 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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. Description specifies return type as JSON array and gives API endpoint and area. However, it lacks details on the structure of filter options and mildly misstates usage (enumerating issues vs. filter options). Annotations are rich, so the bar is lower, but some gaps remain.

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% with good descriptions. The description mentions required parameter project_id and implies pagination via page/per_page, but adds no significant meaning beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a list of available status filters for Coordination Issues, with specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'status filters'. It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling tools like list_coordination_issues by focusing on filter options. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 says 'Use this to enumerate Coordination Issues when you need a paginated overview...' but this tool returns filter options, not issues, creating mild confusion. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the endpoint and context are given. Sibling tools include list_available_filters_for_coordination_issues and list_status_filter_options, but no comparison is made.

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