list_issue_statuses

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists issue statuses, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is safe (no side effects) or any permissions required. For such a simple tool, the description is adequate but lacks full transparency.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and adds a practical note about using the IDs. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary information.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'issue statuses' and 'IDs', but does not describe the structure (e.g., list of objects with id and name fields). The complexity is low, so the description is mostly adequate, but a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 already describes project_id well (100% coverage). The description reinforces that the listing is for a project. It does not add additional parameter semantics like default values, allowed values, or examples. The description is consistent with the schema.

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 tool's purpose: to list all issue statuses for a project. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_task_statuses by specifying 'issue statuses'. Additionally, it provides context that the returned IDs are used for updating issue status, which adds clarity.

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 mentions that the returned IDs are used when updating issue status, which gives a usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other listing tools like list_task_statuses or list_userstory_statuses. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternatives.

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