list_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', which hints at a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to assess behavioral impact.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide context for the parameter and expected behavior. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter 'id'. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent without any understanding of its purpose (e.g., filtering by specific status ID?). This is a critical gap.

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 'List incident statuses' clearly states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('incident statuses'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other entities (e.g., list_priorities, list_categories). No tautology, and the purpose is immediately understandable.

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 implies that the tool should be used when the agent needs to retrieve incident statuses, but it provides no explicit usage context, such as when not to use it or alternatives. Given the number of sibling 'list_*' tools, some guidance would help, but the name alone offers implied usage.

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