alga_statuses_list

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add operational context. It adds pagination ('one page at a time') and the board_id dependency, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about default/max page size or what the page envelope looks like.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, ordered from the core action to filtering to the conditional constraint. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a 7-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers the main selection semantics and the one non-obvious prerequisite. The remaining gap is sorting/paging behavior and return shape, which is a modest but real omission.

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 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does the most important part: it enumerates all four type values and explains that board_id is conditionally required for type=ticket. It leaves sort, order, and the page/limit bounds undocumented, though those are partially self-explanatory from names and defaults.

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 ('List statuses') plus its paging behavior, which is concrete. It does not distinguish itself from nearby list tools such as alga_projects_task_status_mappings_list or alga_priorities_list, so an agent must infer that this is the canonical status catalog.

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 actionable usage context: filter by type or name search, and a hard prerequisite that type=ticket also requires board_id. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming an alternative tool, but the filtering guidance is clear enough to route most calls.

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