list_workflow_statuses

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds the semantic mapping for category_id but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like sorting, pagination details (beyond the limit parameter), or what fields are returned. With strong annotation coverage, the description provides only marginal additional behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The mapping is front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description, combined with the input schema and output schema (present per context), sufficiently defines the tool for an agent. Minor gap: missing guidance on when to use this vs. other status-related tools, but overall adequate for a simple read-only list operation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all three parameters (workflow_id, category_id, limit) with types, constraints, and meanings. The description reinforces the category_id mapping, which is already in the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 tool lists workflow statuses and provides the specific mapping of category_id to status names (Not Started=1, Started=2, Closed=3). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_tasks or list_activities, which focus on different resources.

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 to retrieve valid workflow statuses for setting task status, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related operations (e.g., update_task_status). It offers no exclusions or contrasts with siblings.

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