allure_list_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (dict with project_id, count, statuses) and mentioning built-in statuses use negative ids, which aids understanding but does not heavily extend beyond the annotations.

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 short paragraphs with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the function, guiding usage, and explaining return format. No unnecessary 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 the low complexity (one integer parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and return values completely. It leaves no important gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter project_id, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides ('Allure project ID'). No extra semantics are offered.

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 it lists test-case statuses with specific fields (id, name, color). It distinguishes from sibling tools like allure_list_projects and allure_list_test_cases because it focuses on statuses, not other entities.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover valid status names/ids before setting a status on allure_create_test_case / allure_update_test_case.' It also notes that built-in statuses use negative ids, providing crucial context.

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