listStatuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about reusing IDs as statusId, but it does not describe other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or response shape. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence immediately explains practical downstream usage.

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 lookup tool with strong annotations and an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what is returned, why it matters, and how the results should be used in sibling tools.

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 input schema provides no semantics to enhance. The description still adds value by clarifying that the tool returns IDs and names rather than requiring inputs. Baseline 4 is appropriate here.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: discovering Redmine issue status IDs and names. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like listPriorities and listTrackers by explicitly limiting scope to issue statuses and positioning them as canonical inputs for statusId.

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 usage context: use this tool to discover valid status IDs for filtering or mutation, and reuse the IDs in listIssues, createIssue, or updateIssue. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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