redmine_get_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read, which is the key behavioral trait, but the description does not disclose return format, ordering, or whether statuses are global to the Redmine instance or scoped to a specific project. This is adequate but thin for a simple enumeration tool.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource immediately and every word contributes 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 listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the scope, and the operation. The only minor gap is the ambiguity of 'in the Redmine project' (instance-wide versus a single project), and the absence of an output schema means return structure is left unspecified, but this is a nominal gap for such a simple call.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not compensate for anything, and no parameter semantics are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('issue statuses') with a clear scope ('all available in the Redmine project'). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like redmine_get_issues_by_status because it targets the statuses themselves rather than issues filtered by status, though it never explicitly names 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redmine_get_issues_by_status or redmine_get_issue. The description states what it does but provides no context for selection or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names.

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