list_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'List all available task statuses' without explicitly confirming this is read-only, whether it includes inactive or archived statuses, or what the response format looks like. The word 'List' implies read-only, but that is not explicitly stated, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 short sentence that conveys the core action without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and perfectly concise.

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?

The tool is very simple with no parameters, but the description does not mention what the return value looks like, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks detail on the response structure (e.g., an array of status objects), so it is not fully complete.

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 input schema shows zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter meaning because there are no parameters to explain.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('all available task statuses'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks (tasks) and create_status/delete_status (mutations). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 enumerate statuses but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives, nor any exclusions. For a list operation, the use case is fairly obvious, so it earns a 3.

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