Get status list

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

The annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral details, such as whether the list includes both statuses and stages, or if any ordering or filtering applies. This is acceptable given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of safety annotations, but no extra transparency is provided.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no extraneous information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is somewhat implicit for a listing operation. The annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is complete enough for this low-complexity tool.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's mention of 'status/stage definitions' refers to the resource being listed rather than a parameter, which is fine. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no deduction is warranted.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('status/stage definitions available in the account'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_client_status (which fetches a single client's status) and add_status (which creates a new status).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what the tool does without any contextual hints. For a tool that could be confused with get_client_status or add_status, some usage direction would be helpful, but none is given.

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