list_workitem_statuses

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: true) by specifying the tool is for GitLab 17+ and that it returns global IDs for status updates. No contradictions with annotations; additional behavioral details like pagination are not needed for this simple list tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('List'), and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or redundant 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 simple inputs and lack of output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return value's purpose and scope. It could mention the return structure (e.g., list of strings), but the phrase 'Returns global IDs' suffices for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters well. The description adds minimal extra beyond confirming the purpose of the return values for update tools, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('allowed Status widget values for a Work Item type in a group'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_issue/update_epic by stating that it returns global IDs used for those updates.

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 IDs as status_id for update_issue and update_epic, providing direct context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to other list tools among siblings, which would push it to 5.

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