get_task_states

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation scoped to a specific server, but it does not explicitly state that no mutations occur, or describe authentication, error conditions, or ordering behavior. The term 'List' implicitly conveys read-only behavior, but more explicit disclosure would be stronger.

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 focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action 'List' and immediately states the resource and expected output fields, making it efficient and easy to consume.

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 zero-parameter metadata query with an output schema available, this description is complete. It specifies the domain scope ('this server'), the object queried ('valid task workflow states'), and the exact fields returned, which is sufficient for an agent to know why and how to invoke the tool.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The schema already fully covers this case, and the description adds useful context about what kind of values are returned.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('this server's valid task workflow states'), and the output fields ({code, label, terminal}). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which operate on individual tasks, task lists, or timesheets.

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 implies the tool is used when an agent needs the set of valid workflow states for tasks, likely to feed other task operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over a sibling tool or when not to use it.

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