jira_get_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond it. It does not say whether statuses are project-workflow-scoped, whether categories/IDs are returned, or whether results are cached or paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise; the brevity leaves real gaps unaddressed.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits the scope of returned statuses (workflow vs. global) and what the caller can do with them, which would be the natural value-add.

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% and the single 'key' parameter is documented with a pattern and example, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the statuses of a project') with the required project key implied, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the cluster of sibling metadata getters (jira_get_priorities, jira_get_issue_types, jira_get_fields), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the other metadata tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid project key or the tool being scoped to a project's workflow. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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