motion_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention response shape, whether results include both task and project statuses, authentication needs, or any limits; it only adds the workspace-scoping information already present in the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and scope.

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 read-only lookup with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is returned and for which scope. It does not describe return formatting or the list-only operation, but those are low-risk gaps given the schema's full parameter documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents operation, workspaceId, and workspaceName. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, naming only the workspace concept; the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('available task/project statuses'), and a scope ('for a workspace'). This distinguishes it from all listed siblings, which target different resources such as tasks, projects, comments, or custom fields.

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 implies the tool is used when statuses are needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternative tools. Since no sibling covers statuses, the lack of explicit exclusions is not critical, but the guidance remains only implicit.

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