taiga_userstory_statuses_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the read-only 'List' action and the project-filtering behavior, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, ordering, or whether omitting project returns statuses from all projects. This is adequate but minimal for a simple list operation.

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 with no filler; the core action and filter are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an explicit statement of behavior when 'project' is omitted, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'project' parameter as 'Project ID'. The description adds the semantic that this parameter acts as a filter, which is helpful but not a major addition.

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 concrete resource ('userstory statuses'), clearly distinguishing this from related tools like taiga_userstory_statuses_get or task/issue status lists. The added 'Filter by project' further clarifies the operation's scope.

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 for retrieving userstory statuses and optionally narrowing by project, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over taiga_userstory_statuses_get or other status list endpoints. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternatives, so usage context is only implicit.

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