list_states

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ({name, type}), that states are in workflow order, and that these values are accepted by create_issue and update_issue. It does not cover error behavior, but this is adequate for a simple read-only list tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, why it matters, and how to specify the parameter. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the parameter semantics and the relationship to other tools without unnecessary 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: 'team: team key or full team name.' This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's bare 'Team' string property.

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' and the resource 'workflow states for a team', plus output format and ordering. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_labels and list_users by naming the specific resource type.

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 connects states to create_issue and update_issue, telling the agent this is the source for valid `state` values. It does not explicitly say when not to use alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough.

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