getIssueStatuses

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list', which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose what data is returned, whether all statuses are included, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations. This is barely more informative than the tool's name.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence and no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified, which slightly reduces the value, but for what it attempts to communicate, it is efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains, but it doesn't. It also ignores the required 'format' parameter. Given the simple nature of the tool, the description is still incomplete for an agent to fully understand expected inputs and outputs.

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 schema has a required nested parameter 'format' with an enum of 'json' or 'xml', but the description gives no explanation of this parameter or its purpose. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not mention parameters at all.

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?

Describes the tool as 'List issue statuses', which clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'issue statuses'. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like getIssueCategories or getTrackers, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself beyond naming the resource.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply repeats the tool's purpose without mentioning context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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