getIssueStatuses

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals the read-only nature, and the description only adds 'List', which repeats that without providing extra behavioral detail. It does not mention the required 'format' parameter, pagination, ordering, or what the response contains. With the annotation covering safety, the description adds minimal transparency beyond that.

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 (four words) with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. A good description balances brevity with necessary detail; here, the lack of any parameter or behavior explanation makes it feel incomplete rather than efficient.

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 tool with a required format parameter and no output schema, the description fails to explain how format affects the output or what the statuses are. It does not mention any side effects, but readOnlyHint covers safety. Overall, an agent would struggle to call this correctly without opening the schema or guessing.

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 explain parameters, but it completely ignores the only parameter 'format' (json/xml). The description offers no hint about the format parameter's role, leaving the agent to infer from the schema enum alone. This is a significant gap given the parameter is required.

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 'List issue statuses' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's goal obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getTrackers or getIssuePriorities, so it misses the top score. The name itself also reinforces the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getTrackers or getIssuePriorities. No context is provided about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. The description gives zero usage direction.

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