df_statuses

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'list' signals a read-only operation and the parenthetical explains what kind of data is returned, but permissions, error conditions, or the need for the issue to exist are not disclosed. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, well-structured sentence with a helpful parenthetical clarification. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every part contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description conveys the essential call intent and describes the semantic result: the states an issue can move to from its current state. It would benefit from explicitly stating the return format or whether transition IDs are provided, but the core is complete enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents the single required parameter issueKey with an example. The description adds the context that the transition list depends on the issue's current state, but it does not substantially enrich what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Listar') and a specific resource ('las transiciones disponibles para un issue'), and clarifies the scope as the states reachable from the issue's current state. This clearly sets it apart from siblings like df_transition, which moves the issue, and df_issues, which lists issues.

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 that the tool should be used when one needs to know an issue's possible next states, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say that df_transition should be used to actually execute a transition. The usage context is understandable but not stated as guidance.

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