list_states

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that states are grouped by categories (backlog, unstarted, etc.) and that it returns UUIDs for downstream operations. However, it omits behaviors like pagination (despite cursor/per_page parameters) and response structure, which would add more transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and then adds a single clarifying purpose and grouping detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed, why it is needed, and the category groups. It lacks details about return format and pagination behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the core operational context is well covered.

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 description coverage is 0% — the description does not explain any of the six parameters. Project_id is implied by 'in a project' but not named. Parameters like cursor, expand, fields, order_by, and per_page are entirely undocumented, and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 and resource ('List all states (statuses) in a project') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like retrieve_state by emphasizing 'all states'. It also adds the practical purpose of getting state UUIDs for creating or filtering work items, making the tool's role 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this to get state UUIDs needed for creating or filtering work items.' It provides clear context and a concrete use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the guidance is strong enough to avoid confusion with single-item retrieval.

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