alga_projects_task_status_mappings_list

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the disclosure that results are returned in Alga's display order and that an empty phase silently falls back to the project's statuses. That fallback is a non-obvious behavior worth surfacing. It stops short of describing pagination or error conditions, which are minor for a small list.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the optional-parameter behavior. No filler and no repetition of schema constraints.

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 no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return value as an ordered list of statuses with their IDs. It is sufficient to call the tool correctly, though it does not state which fields accompany each status beyond the ID.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does for phase_id: it explains the scoping effect and the inheritance fallback, which the schema cannot express. project_id is only implied by 'a project uses', leaving the required parameter's role unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists the task statuses a project uses, including ordering and the project_status_mapping_id identifier. The project-scoped framing implicitly separates it from the global alga_statuses_list, but it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for phase_id ('Pass phase_id to get the statuses for one phase') and the fallback when the phase has none. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, so usage is implied rather than fully routed.

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