gorelo_list_ticket_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It signals a read-only list operation and adds the 'configured for the service provider' scoping detail, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether inactive or archived statuses are included. This is reasonable for a simple list but leaves some behavior unstated.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool and every word earns its place.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only list, the description identifies the resource and scope with enough clarity to invoke the tool. The lack of return-value or ordering details is a minor gap, but the low complexity and absent output schema make the description mostly sufficient.

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 zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything about inputs. The description correctly focuses on the resource and scope rather than inventing parameter details, matching the baseline expectation for a no-parameter 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?

States a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('ticket statuses'), and a scope ('configured for the service provider'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gorelo_list_ticket_types and gorelo_list_ticket_tags. There is no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 such as list_ticket_tags, list_ticket_types, or get_ticket. Any usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list, so the description does not help agents choose correctly.

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