get_issue_statuses_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the project-scoping context and the semantic meaning of the returned entities, but says nothing about pagination behavior or that results are bounded by page/limit.

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?

Three short sentences, but the first ('Get project issue statuses') and second ('Retrieve all issue statuses configured for a project') largely restate the same fact, so one sentence does not fully earn its place. Front-loading is good and size is reasonable.

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 read-only collection endpoint with no output schema, the description explains what is returned conceptually but omits pagination semantics, response shape, and any note on ordering or volume — gaps that matter for a paginated list endpoint with a nested required parameter.

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 reported at 0%, and the nested 'path' and 'query' objects carry no descriptions in the schema. The description supplies no parameter-level detail at all — it never mentions projectId, page, or limit — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a nested-object input.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve all issue statuses configured for a project') and clarifies the domain concept (statuses track workflow state). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling collections like get_issue_priorities_collection or get_issue_categories_collection by resource alone, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'configured for a project' — an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating a project's workflow statuses — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling collection endpoints.

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