asana_get_project_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving status updates but fails to describe key traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity of a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are essential for effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the relationship between 'project_gid' and other parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all status updates for a project'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'asana_get_project_status' (singular vs. plural) or explain the relationship between them, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'asana_get_project_status' (singular) or other project-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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