Get Statuses

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

The description adds context about statuses being 'available in Yandex Tracker that can be used in issues', which is slightly beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or potential limitations.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete enough. It states what the tool retrieves and the domain (Yandex Tracker issues), which suffices for agent invocation.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details. It appropriately confirms the tool takes no arguments, earning a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Get' and the resource 'all statuses available in Yandex Tracker that can be used in issues'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_global_fields and get_issue_types, which cover different entities.

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 guidance on when to use versus alternatives, but the tool's purpose is straightforward (retrieving statuses) and it is the only tool for that purpose among siblings. Usage is implied but not elaborated.

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