get_statuses

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by revealing that it returns both IDs and names, and that these are interoperable with other tools. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's place in workflows.

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 sentence that conveys all necessary information: what it gets, example values, and the return format. Every clause earns its place; there is no wasted text.

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?

For a simple no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is complete. It explains the output (status IDs and names) and how it can be used elsewhere. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of return values is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and there is no schema coverage gap. It adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all available test statuses'), and provides concrete examples (Passed, Failed, Blocked). It also indicates the output type (status IDs and names), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tests or get_cases.

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 explains when this tool is useful by noting that the returned IDs and names can be used with add_result and get_tests. This gives clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives. Given that no sibling tool directly overlaps with statuses, this is sufficient.

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