itglue_list_configuration_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, but the context of listing suggests it is non-destructive. The description lacks explicit behavioral disclosure beyond the basic function.

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?

Description is three concise sentences: first sentence states purpose with examples, second explains usage of returned IDs, third provides synonyms. No superfluous content, front-loaded with key information.

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 the tool's low complexity and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value and usage in downstream calls. However, it does not mention pagination or sorting, which are covered by parameters but could be noted.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema adequately describes parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the output (status IDs) and giving examples of status values, but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'configuration status definitions'. It provides examples of lifecycle states and distinguishes from sibling tools like itglue_list_configuration_types by specifying what it returns.

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?

Description explains the use case: returning status IDs for filtering search_configurations or setting status on create/update. It provides synonyms for alternative phrasing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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