redmine_list_statuses

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

The description implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not explicitly mention any behavioral traits like permissions, response format, or ordering, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the burden.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but could be slightly more explicit about the return type or that it returns a list of all statuses. Still, it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully documents all inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 'List all available issue statuses' clearly states the action (list) and the specific resource (issue statuses). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redmine_list_priorities and redmine_list_trackers by explicitly focusing on statuses.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need to retrieve all issue statuses. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, which prevents a higher score.

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