list_test_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results include both system and custom statuses, and codes are case-insensitive with examples (PASSED, FAILED, BLOCKED). It does not mention ordering or whether the full set is always returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, and the key fact (what is listed and which fields come back) is front-loaded before the consumption hint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields and the case-insensitivity rule. The only remaining gaps are result ordering and whether an empty list is possible, which are minor for a small enum-style lookup.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly spends its words on the output fields and how to reuse the returned code instead of inventing input semantics.

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 verb and resource ("List test result statuses") and scopes it precisely to system and custom statuses, then enumerates the returned fields (code, name, type). That is enough to distinguish it from the surrounding list_* siblings without opening the schema.

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 a concrete downstream usage rule: take "code" and pass it as statusCode to submit_test_run_results / set_test_result, which tells the agent why and when to call this tool. It does not state exclusions or explain when the lookup can be skipped (e.g. if the code is already known), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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