teamleader_ticket_status_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden for behavioral transparency, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention pagination behavior (despite having page/page_size parameters), return format, or whether the operation is read-only, though the verb 'list' implies it.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks details about pagination and when the statuses might be used elsewhere. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully support the agent, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only page_size has a description, page does not), and the tool description adds no parameter details. The phrase 'all available' could even mislead users into thinking pagination is unnecessary, though page/page_size parameters exist.

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 action (list) and the resource (ticket statuses), making it distinct from sibling tools like teamleader_tickets_list or teamleader_tickets_info. There is no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 implies the tool is used to fetch all ticket statuses, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before creating or updating a ticket) or contrast it with alternative list tools. It offers no exclusions or alternative references, so usage context is only inferred.

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