get_workflow_statuses

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the read-only nature. The description mentions listing status changes but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or response format. Since annotations already declare it safe, the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, very concise but under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters. It lacks details on output or usage nuances.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not cover pagination, response structure, or what 'status changes' entail. The agent would need to infer behavior from schema alone.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It lists filter categories (status, phone, agent, date range) but misses pagination parameters (page, per_page) and does not explain enum values for 'action'. This provides partial semantic help.

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 lists status changes (cambios de estado) of conversations with optional filters, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_conversation that get a single conversation. However, it does not specify the structure of the response.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_conversation or change_conversation_status. The description only states optional filters but does not exclude scenarios.

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