projects_execution_statuses_list

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool returns execution statuses, includes both default and custom ones, and is likely read-only. It does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, but for a list tool, transparency is adequate.

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 and front-loaded with the action. The 'Tag: Projects' line adds minimal value but does not hinder readability. Overall, efficient and informative.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the output content (system-wide defaults and project-specific statuses) and how to use it. This is complete for a list tool with clear usage instructions.

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 100% (one parameter 'id' with description 'Project ID'). The description adds no further parameter details but provides context on output usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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 lists execution statuses available in a project, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bug_statuses_list or cycle_statuses_list by specifying 'execution statuses'. It further details the inclusion of system-wide defaults and project-specific statuses.

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 explicit guidance on using the output ID as 'statusId' when creating or updating executions. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context makes it clear it's for execution statuses.

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