get_all_statuses

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

No annotations are present, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'returns all issue statuses' without mentioning read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The warning in the schema about maxResults being ignored is not reinforced in the description.

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 clear sentence with no extra words. It is appropriately brief for a simple list operation, though it could be slightly improved by including usage context.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations. The description does not explain what 'issue statuses' entails (e.g., structure, list of strings vs objects), whether it scopes to a project, or pagination behavior. Given the ignored maxResults parameter, the agent may need more details.

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 100% and the schema description for maxResults explicitly states it is ignored. The tool description adds no further parameter information, but the baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 the verb 'return' and the resource 'all issue statuses from Jira', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ticket (single ticket) and list_projects (list projects). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_boards or execute_jql. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., Jira login) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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