wetrack_list_ticket_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states useful behavior: resource filtering can return all statuses, and include_inactive controls whether soft-deleted statuses are shown. However, it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only and non-mutating, although 'list' strongly implies 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?

The description is tight and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a compact two-parameter explanation. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers both parameters and their defaults. The only small omission is an explicit reference to wetrack_get_ticket_status as perhaps the single-record alternative, but the plural form and scoped resource description make that unnecessary.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It does: it enumerates the accepted resource values ('SPRINT', 'TASK', 'PROJECT'), explains that omitting it returns all statuses, and reveals the meaning and default of include_inactive. This is exactly the information an agent cannot get from the schema alone.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the list of ticket statuses.' It clearly identifies a distinct operation from siblings like get_ticket_status, create_ticket_status, and the other status-related tools, and the resource filter demonstrates a specific scope.

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 defines what filtering is possible, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as wetrack_get_ticket_status. The sibling distinction is inferable from the name, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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