get_workflow_states

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves all workflow states for a team, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention the return format, any filtering limitations, or whether archived states are included. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core function, followed by a usage note and practical examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: what it does, why to use it, and example queries. It does not describe the response structure, but the note about finding state IDs implies the response contains IDs. This is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 already documents teamId fully, including how to find team IDs via get_teams. The description adds only the phrase 'for a specific team,' which is already implied by the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Get all workflow states (statuses) for a specific team.' It specifies the resource (workflow states) and the scope (specific team), and distinguishes itself by noting its use case 'to find state IDs when updating issues', which differentiates it from sibling tools like update_issue.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to find state IDs when updating issues.' It gives clear context and examples but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Since the siblings do not include another workflow-state lookup tool, this is sufficient.

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