asana_list_project_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a note on pagination and the field set returned, which is useful, but does not cover error conditions, rate limits, or any side effects. The bar is lowered because annotations cover the core safety, so this is adequate but not copious.

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 short sentences: first the core purpose and the fields, then a note on pagination. Every word serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 a simple list, and the description gives the returned fields and that pagination is present. Without an output schema, the description omits how the response is packaged (e.g., whether items are embedded or a token is returned) and how the pagination actually ends. However, for a basic list operation with no complex parameters, this is minimally sufficient; it could be improved by stating the default field subset and the meaning of the pagination token.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, max_pages, opt_fields, project_gid) have meaningful descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description does not add any value on top of the schema—it only repeats the domain of status updates. Since the schema already documents the parameters adequately, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (project's status updates), and the specific fields returned (status_type, title, text, author). It distinguishes itself from creating status updates (asana_create_project_status) and from listing other resources like tasks or sections, even without explicitly naming them. The verb+object structure is precise 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus others. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., project GID required), or surrounding conditions like whether this is read-only. Agents receive no hint about when to prefer this tool over list_stories or list_tasks.

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