get_statuses

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the return type (status IDs and names) and the intended downstream usage, which goes beyond the annotation hints. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose, output, and usage in a front-loaded manner. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or ambiguity.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple lookup tool. It explains what is returned and why the agent would use it (to get IDs for other operations). This covers the essential context without missing information.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. Per the rules, zero parameters has a baseline of 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output and usage without unnecessary parameter details.

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 (Get), resource (all available test statuses), and provides examples (Passed, Failed, Blocked). It also explains the output (status IDs and names) and how it can be used with add_result and get_tests, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve other entity 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?

The description implies usage when needing status IDs for add_result and get_tests. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (many get_* tools) makes the specific purpose clear. A slight improvement would be to explicitly mention that this is the canonical way to retrieve statuses.

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