get_statuses

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the shape of the return (status IDs and names) and the fact that those IDs feed into add_result and get_tests.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the return/usage note. No filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the name.

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 zero-param, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned content, and downstream usage, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It stops short of noting whether the status list is static or project-configurable, a minor gap for this tool class.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline this scores 4. The schema itself carries no additional semantics that need explanation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get all available test statuses") and makes the resource concrete with examples (Passed, Failed, Blocked). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the other lookup siblings (get_labels, get_priorities, get_templates), but the resource is unambiguous.

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 second sentence implies usage by naming downstream consumers (add_result, get_tests), which tells the agent this is a prerequisite lookup step. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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