focus_list_statuses

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists statuses, omitting any mention of read-only nature, pagination behavior, or side effects. While 'list' implies safety, the description does not explicitly confirm any operational traits.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It quickly communicates the core function without waste, earning a top 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 straightforward list tool with good schema coverage, the description provides the essential scope ('for a workspace') and resource focus. It lacks any detail about pagination or the response format, but these are partially covered by the schema's parameter descriptions, making it adequate yet not fully comprehensive.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it relies entirely on the schema's parameter descriptions. The one undocumented parameter ('name') is not clarified in the description either.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and clearly identifies the resource ('task statuses') and scope ('for a workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities like projects, tasks, or clients, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (you'd use it to list task statuses for a workspace) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion of alternatives. There are no prerequisites or 'use instead' cues, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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