get_status

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, the tool's behavior is not fully disclosed. The word 'get' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, error behavior for invalid ids, or permission requirements. The description lacks transparency about what happens on failure or if the id does not exist.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or redundant information. It is concise and to the point, which is ideal for a simple get operation.

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 lacks an output schema and the description does not mention what the return value will be (e.g., full status object, specific fields). It also omits any error handling or edge-case behavior. For a get operation, this leaves the user guessing about the response format, making the description incomplete.

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 single parameter 'status_id' is self-explanatory from its name and type (integer), and the description reiterates that it identifies the status. However, the description does not add any extra context about the id's meaning, range, or format, so it adds little beyond the schema itself. Given the schema covers the parameter, a score of 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 (get), the resource (work package status), and the specific identifier (by id). It distinguishes itself from the list_statuses sibling by indicating it retrieves a single item, making the purpose 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 usage for retrieving one specific status when an id is known, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_statuses or when not to use it. It provides no guidance on prerequisites or conditions, so while the intent is clear, usage context is only implied.

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