taskhub_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return contents (id, name, flags) and explains the meaning of DEFAULT and COMPLETED flags. It could add error/empty-result behavior, but for a simple listing tool this is solid.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose first, the critical usage warning second, and return semantics last. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 has no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations; the description explains what it returns and why an agent needs it. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to do with the results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a slight reminder that omitting projectId selects global/daily statuses, which the schema already states; it does not materially enrich the parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List available task statuses') and immediately clarifies the two scopes (project statuses vs global/daily statuses). It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, none of which addresses status lookup.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: call before creating or updating tasks to learn valid statusId values. It doesn't name exclusions or alternative tools, but there is no sibling status tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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