List task statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results come back in board position order, each status carries completion/archive/not-started classification, and it maps to GET /api/v1/task-status with sort=position.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and its ordering/classification, the second front-loads the consumption reason. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 must convey the return shape; it does so partially (ordering, classification flags, UUIDs as keys) but does not enumerate the actual field names an agent would read. Adequate for a simple lookup, with a small gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly signals no filtering input is required or accepted.

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 resource (task statuses) and scope (the firm's settings, in board order), plus the semantics of the returned set (which count as completed, archived or not started). It is unmistakably the status-enumeration tool and cannot be confused with the list_tasks/get_task siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit downstream trigger: 'create_task needs one of these UUIDs,' which tells the agent exactly when to call it. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming alternatives, but for a dependency-lookup tool this is strong routing guidance.

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