get_issue_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It correctly indicates a read operation (lists) and mentions session handling. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., invalid project_id) or any side effects, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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 very concise, consisting of two clear sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies session behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely adequate. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the output is a list of statuses (though the schema covers that) or by providing examples of status values.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that session_id defaults to the default session, which is already indicated by the schema's default. It does not explain the meaning or format of project_id or session_id beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool lists available statuses for issues within a specific project. It uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('statuses for issues'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_task_statuses and get_user_story_statuses by specifying 'for issues'.

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 only a minimal usage hint about the session_id parameter defaulting to the default session. It does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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