gorelo_list_ticket_statuses

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds only a small amount of context: that the statuses are service-provider-configured (i.e. tenant-level, not project-level). It says nothing about ordering, whether inactive statuses are included, or the shape of the returned 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?

One short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing in it is redundant with the tool name to the point of waste, and nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete. The only gap is that with no output schema, an agent cannot predict whether the response is a bare array of names or objects with IDs — a minor omission for such a simple tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. Schema coverage is reported at 100% and the empty object schema matches the description's implication of an unfiltered listing.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') plus a clear resource ('ticket statuses'), and the qualifier 'configured for the service provider' scopes it. It is naturally distinguishable from siblings like gorelo_list_ticket_types and gorelo_list_ticket_tags, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. The usage is strongly implied — an agent would infer this is a lookup for valid status values, e.g. before calling gorelo_create_ticket or gorelo_update_ticket — but that inference is left to the reader.

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