list_statuses

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('List'), but does not disclose any additional behavior such as ordering, inclusion of custom statuses, or permission requirements. For a simple list tool this is adequate but minimal.

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?

One concise sentence with no wordiness. The key action ('List') leads, and the resource and scope are clear. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It adequately conveys the purpose and scope. It could have hinted at the return format, but the name 'list_statuses' and verb 'List' strongly imply a list return, so no significant gap exists.

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 schema already describes 'project_id' as 'Project ID', providing 100% coverage. The description only restates that statuses are 'for a project', adding no new meaning about the parameter's format or constraints. The baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is complete.

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 ('List') and resource ('task statuses') with a clear scope ('for a project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling listing tools like list_tasks and list_phases by naming the specific resource.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing statuses for a project) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools, so it remains implied rather than stated.

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