list_issue_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions scoping via `team_id` and default all-workspace behavior, but omits important details such as pagination (via `after` and `first` parameters) and the `workspace` parameter, leaving significant gaps.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the main action and then clarify scoping. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 presence of four parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on pagination and the `workspace` parameter. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for all scenarios.

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 description adds meaning for the `team_id` parameter, explaining its scoping effect, which adds value beyond the schema. However, the other three parameters (`after`, `first`, `workspace`) are not described, and schema description coverage is 0%, so partial 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 'List workflow states (issue statuses) per team,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_issue_status' by emphasizing listing multiple per team, making its purpose evident.

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 provides clear context on the `team_id` parameter ('scopes results to one team; omit for all'), but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'get_issue_status' for when to use one over the other.

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