List statuses

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 discloses that the tool provides legal status values, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor describe output shape, ordering, or freshness. The list implication is clear, but behavioral detail is minimal.

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?

One sentence that is compact, informative, and front-loads the core purpose. It also connects the values to the tools that consume them, making it efficient and purposeful.

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 listing tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, its role, and its consumers. It could be more explicit about output format or read-only nature, but the lack of parameters and simple purpose reduce the need for extensive detail.

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 tool has zero parameters i.e., no parameters to document. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining what the returned statuses represent, which is more context than the empty schema alone provides.

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 identifies the resource ('team's board columns'), the operation (list), and the semantic role (legal status values for task operations). It sets the tool apart from siblings like list-labels and list-tasks by describing exactly what these values are for.

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 when to use it: before create-task, update-task, or list-tasks to know valid status values. It does not explicitly state exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, but the usage context is clear enough from the reference to those task operations.

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