List Tracker statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the returned records (key/name/type such as new/inProgress/done), which is the main behavioral unknown for a no-output-schema list.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then the record shape, then usage and related tools. Three short sentences, none of which repeats the title or annotations.

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 parameterless read-only list with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, the fields per item, and when to reach for it versus neighboring lists. No obvious gap remains.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The empty input schema is consistent with the 'list everything' framing.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Every issue status configured in the organisation's workflows.' It then enumerates what each status contains (key, name, type), which lets an agent distinguish this from tracker_resolutions_list and tracker_priorities_list without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('resolve or validate a status key before filtering or transitioning issues') and names two adjacent lists with their domains. It stops short of stating exclusions or clarifying against the write siblings (statuses_create/update), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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