get_statuses

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's burden is only to add context beyond that. It adds nothing — no note on whether results are global or project-scoped, whether they are ordered, or whether pagination applies. "List all" merely corroborates the annotation rather than extending it.

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 five-word sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive catalog read with no output schema and no annotations beyond read-only, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke it. The only real gap is scope ambiguity (global vs. project-specific statuses), which is minor at this complexity level.

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, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to supply; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing is misleading or missing on this dimension.

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 clear verb and resource ("List all issue statuses"), so an agent immediately knows this is a read of the status catalog. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent catalog-listing siblings such as get_priorities, get_resolutions, or get_issue_types beyond the noun itself.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the right call for enumerating statuses rather than, say, get_issue_transitions or get_issue_fields.

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