get_issue_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. It states the tool retrieves a list but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned list beyond '格式化的狀態列表' (formatted status list). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another hinting at the return format. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the second sentence 'Returns: 格式化的狀態列表' is somewhat redundant and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error cases, or the exact structure of the 'formatted status list' (e.g., JSON array, human-readable text). Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful for an 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.

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's purpose: '取得所有可用的議題狀態列表' (Get all available issue statuses list). It specifies the verb '取得' (get) and resource '議題狀態列表' (issue statuses list), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue' or 'update_issue_status', which slightly limits its clarity in context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before updating an issue status), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_issue' (which might include status info) or 'update_issue_status' (which might require knowing valid statuses). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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