get_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance: these are organization-level configured statuses, not per-issue status values. Beyond that it says nothing about caching, completeness of the returned set, or authorization scope.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names verb, resource, and scope with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or deferred.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema that documents the return shape, and annotations covering the read-only profile, the definition is nearly self-sufficient. The only shortfall is the absence of routing guidance among the several sibling configuration-listing tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is no parameter meaning the description needs to supply. It correctly implies a full org-wide enumeration with no filtering options.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Получить статусы задач' (get task statuses), narrowed by scope to those 'настроенные в организации' (configured in the organization). This is clearly distinct from issue-level operations, but it does not differentiate itself from near-identical sibling configuration lookups such as get_priorities, get_resolutions, or get_issue_types.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related configuration-listing siblings. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the status-config lookup versus get_priorities/get_resolutions.

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