list_task_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that statuses are scoped per-project and clarifies the relationship between task_id and project_id. However, it does not explain behavior when both parameters are provided or when neither is provided, nor does it explicitly state that the tool is read-only (though 'List' implies this).

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, concise sentence followed by a useful example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, scope, and usage. It does not mention what happens if both parameters are supplied or if no parameters are supplied, which is a minor completeness gap, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that task_id resolves to its containing project and by offering an example usage, enhancing the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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: list custom statuses for a project or a task's project. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing that statuses are scoped per-project, not per task_type, and includes a concrete example ('What statuses can I set on task <id>?') that eliminates ambiguity.

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 provides contextual usage guidance via the example and the scoping note, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), so it falls short of a 5.

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