list_statuses

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior via skip/take parameters, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, and the phrase 'List all' is at odds with the default take=200, implying a bounded result set. This internal inconsistency slightly undermines transparency.

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 succinct, front-loads the main purpose, and separates the argument explanations cleanly. There is no redundant fluff; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (2 optional pagination params, an output schema for return structure), the description provides adequate context. It identifies the resource, mentions the reference data fields, and explains pagination. No further context is needed for a basic list operation.

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 0%, but the description manually explains both parameters (skip: pagination offset, take: number of records). This adds meaning beyond the bare integer types and defaults in the schema, though it could be slightly more detailed (e.g., maximum take value or interaction between skip and take).

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all ticket/record statuses') and identifies the resource (statuses as reference data with name, title, color). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ticket_categories, which deal with different reference data. The verb and resource are 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or refer to any sibling tools that might overlap. The phrase 'reference data' implies a lookup context but stops short of explicit usage guidance.

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