autotask_list_ticket_statuses

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

No annotations provided, but description accurately portrays a read-only listing operation. No side effects or behavioral quirks are hidden; it's straightforward and truthful.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines the action, second provides practical guidance. No filler words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. Could optionally hint at return format, but not essential.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so description adds context by explaining the tool's purpose and usage. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, but description compensates with usage guidance.

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?

Clearly states 'List all available ticket statuses in Autotask', using a specific verb and resource. Distinct from sibling list tools (e.g., list_queues, list_priorities) by focusing solely on statuses.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'to find status values for filtering or creating tickets'. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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