List Contact Statuses

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns Id and Name, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior beyond parameter schema.

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 only two sentences and is entirely relevant. No fluff, clearly front-loaded with the purpose and immediate next action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with only pagination parameters, the description covers what it returns (Id and Name) and how to use the result (as StatusId). No output schema is necessary. Complete within the given complexity.

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 all parameters ('top' and 'skip') are fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning for these parameters, remaining at a baseline of 3.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'available contact statuses', and provides example values (Ativo/Active, Inativo/Inactive). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by specifying it returns status IDs used when creating or filtering contacts.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned Id as StatusId when creating or filtering contacts, providing direct usage guidance. While it doesn't mention when not to use this tool, the context from sibling tools (e.g., ploomes_contacts_create) makes the usage clear.

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