get_user_story_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions default session behavior but omits details like error handling for invalid project_id, whether the output is ordered or filtered, or any side effects. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a behavioral note. No fluff or irrelevant detail.

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 low complexity, existence of an output schema, and the description covering purpose and session behavior, it is largely complete. Minor gap: fails to mention that the endpoint is read-only or that project_id is the sole required field, but output schema likely clarifies return structure.

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 add meaning. It clarifies that project_id identifies the project and that session_id defaults if omitted. However, it does not explain required status of project_id or any constraints on session_id format. Adds basic value but could do more.

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 action ('Lists'), the resource ('available statuses'), and the scope ('for user stories within a specific project'). It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools for issues and tasks 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_issue_statuses or get_task_statuses. The purpose is clear from the name, but the description lacks context on when this is the appropriate choice.

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