get_available_statuses

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns current status and all settable statuses, indicating a read-only operation, but it does not mention error handling, authorization needs, or any edge cases. It adds some context ('workflow') but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not explain return format, but that is acceptable for a simple getter.

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% (work_package_id is clearly described as 'The ID of the work package'). The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'specific work package', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available status transitions for a specific work package'), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on a specific work package and workflow context. It also explains the return value in a distinct way.

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 conveys clear usage context: when you need status transitions for a specific work package. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to distinguish it from list_statuses and other sibling tools.

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