list_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a read-only listing operation and reveals the 'ordered by position' behavior, but it does not mention return format, authentication needs, or any further behavioral nuances. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and the ordering detail follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states exactly what is listed, the scope, and the ordering. A minor gap is that it does not describe the shape or fields of the returned statuses, but the tool's simplicity makes this non-critical.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already fully documents workspace_id. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but none is necessary given the parameter is self-explanatory. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 resource ('all statuses in a workspace'), and adds an explicit ordering detail ('ordered by position'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and is easily distinguished from sibling status-related tools such as create_status, update_status, and delete_status.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to list statuses scoped to a workspace. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but given its straightforward listing purpose and the obvious sibling operations, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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