redmine_get_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List all' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of IDs clarifies the return content. However, it does not explicitly state non-mutation or other behavioral details like ordering or pagination, which is acceptable for a simple list but not fully transparent.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the operation and output, the second provides the practical use case. Very concise and 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and why to use it. It provides sufficient context without needing additional detail about parameters or return structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects that with no properties. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, so the baseline applies.

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 ('issue statuses') and clearly states the output includes IDs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by linking to the update use case, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to find the right status_id for updates.' While it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, the guidance is clear and actionable for a simple lookup tool.

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