query_by_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or any behavioral traits beyond returning rows. The agent cannot infer safety or mutability from this description.

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key purpose and uses ellipsis to indicate a non-exhaustive list, maintaining conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally mention the return format (e.g., list of rows, row structure). It also doesn't repeat the token requirement from the schema, but the schema already documents that. Overall, adequate but missing output details.

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 description adds significant meaning to the 'value' parameter by providing examples of statuses (Accepted, todo, done), which the input schema lacks. This helps the agent understand expected values beyond the bare type string.

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 indicates the tool returns all rows filtered by a status value, distinguishing it from siblings like query_by_id and query_by_kind. However, it does not explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'query' or 'list'), making the purpose slightly less crisp.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_by_id or text_search. There are no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or explicit usage contexts.

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