zendesk_list_custom_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic operation and return format. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient for an AI agent to judge safety.

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: two short sentences. The first states purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and that an output schema exists, the description is complete. It tells what the tool returns (JSON array with specific fields) and how to use the output (reference by id). No additional context is necessary.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information because there are none. Guidelines specify baseline 4 for 0 parameters.

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 verb (list), resource (custom ticket statuses), and scope (all defined in Zendesk). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying the exact resource type. The mention of return fields adds specificity.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use the id when setting custom_status_id on a ticket.' This tells the agent when the output is useful. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but for a simple list tool with no parameters, this is sufficient.

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