list_item_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully declare "Read-only," which covers the safety profile that annotations would normally supply, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or what happens when an unknown team_id is passed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and scoped by team, followed by the accepted argument values. Every clause earns its place with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus the sole parameter's semantics. The only omission is any hint about access requirements or pagination/size limits for a team-wide listing.

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, and it does: it explains that team_id accepts 'current' (the default) or a numeric team ID. It does not state what a numeric ID resolves to or error behavior for invalid IDs, but the accepted-value semantics are covered.

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 names a specific verb ("List") and resource ("item statuses (resource statuses)") scoped to the active eLabFTW team, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings such as list_experiment_statuses or list_item_types.

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?

Usage is implied by the text: call it to enumerate the team's statuses, with the team_id scoping rule given. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative status/type listing tools, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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