List profile statuses

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) and adds context that these are 'custom status labels for tagging profiles,' implying a lightweight read operation. It doesn't detail return format or ordering, but with no parameters and only a list, this is acceptable. The semantic distinction of 'custom' versus system statuses is valuable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It uses parallel structure with the title and immediately communicates the action and object.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is sufficient. It explains both the resource (custom status labels) and purpose (tagging profiles), which is all the context needed. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since no parameter guidance is required.

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 zero parameters, and the description doesn't need to explain any. It clearly states the output is the list of status labels. Since there is no parameter schema to augment, the description fully conveys what the invocation entails.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly specifies the resource: 'custom status labels available for tagging profiles.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_status, update_status, and assign_status, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

While no explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named, the description clearly implies a read-only lookup for statuses. The context of sibling tools (e.g., create_status, delete_statuses) establishes when this list is useful. No parameters are needed, so usage context is straightforward.

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