taiga_task_statuses_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it lists statuses with optional project filtering, but does not mention return format, ordering, required permissions, or any side effects. This is minimal for a read-only listing, but not wholly opaque.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant wording. It is concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool, but it lacks context about the response shape or explicit differentiation from similar tools for other entity types. It is minimally complete for a straightforward 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?

The schema already describes 'project' as 'Project ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds the important meaning that 'project' acts as a filter, clarifying its optional role. This goes slightly beyond the schema's plain field description.

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 ('task statuses'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/update/delete and from userstory/issue status lists. The reference to filtering by project further clarifies its purpose.

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 to retrieve task statuses and optionally filter by project, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as taiga_userstory_statuses_list or taiga_issue_statuses_list. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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