list_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it lists all states, and that params can be passed as query parameters, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, filtering capabilities, or whether the result includes archived/inactive states. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral details unspecified.

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 and well-structured, using a clear Args/Returns format. Every line adds value: it names both parameters, their types, and the return type. There is zero 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 simple: a list operation with two parameters. The description explains the parameters and return type. An output schema exists (not shown in the input), so return values are presumably detailed there. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention that 'all states' includes all workflow states or whether it is scoped to a specific context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly names both parameters and provides brief semantics: project_id is a UUID of the project, params is 'Optional query parameters as a dictionary'. This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema (which only gives types), but it does not explain the allowed keys or values for params. The description is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 operation: 'List all states in a project.' It identifies the resource (states) and the scope (project). It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_cycles or list_work_items by naming 'states'. However, it does not explicitly define what a 'state' is (e.g., workflow state), which could be ambiguous in a project management context.

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: you need a project_id to list states, and it mentions optional query parameters. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. Since there is no other 'list_states' sibling, the intended use is fairly clear, but this dimension lacks explicit direction.

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