list_interview_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return canonical ... status names' clearly signals a read-only reference lookup with no side effects. It does not specify output formatting or whether the list is exhaustive, but for a zero-parameter, constant-style enumeration this is largely sufficient.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds useful context about how the values are used. No redundant words or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description adequately explains what the agent will get (canonical status names) and why that matters (filters and workflows). There is no output schema, so a fuller description of the exact return shape would help, but the description is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 is an empty object with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to compensate for any missing parameter explanations.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and a clear resource: canonical Survey Solutions interview status names. It also states the purpose ('used by export/status filters and fieldwork workflows'), which distinguishes this reference tool from data-returning siblings like list_interviews or summarize_fieldwork_status.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: when an agent needs canonical status names for export filters, status filters, or fieldwork workflows. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the use context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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