ghl_project_get_list_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered externally; the description usefully adds the OAuth scope (projects/workspace.readonly) and server-side resolution behavior. However, the bulk of the preamble (RBAC filtering of task batch-get, lexorank positions, recurring-task owner fields, delete cascades) describes other tools and adds no behavioral insight for this GET.

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?

Roughly half the text is shared PROJECT MANAGEMENT API boilerplate about hierarchy, lexorank, recurring tasks, and delete cascades that is irrelevant to reading list statuses. The actual purpose statement is buried after that preamble rather than front-loaded.

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 read-only GET with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition covers what it returns, the endpoint/version, and auth scope. It stops short of describing the shape of a status group, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema itself documents listId plus the subtle locationId rule (APP channel only, not in path/body/headers). The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it is entirely dependent on 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?

States a specific verb+resource and adds the non-obvious semantics that the returned status groups are the owning space's set resolved server-side, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from ghl_project_get_space_statuses by the 'effective for this list' framing.

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?

'Prefer this over walking `parentId` up to the space' gives an explicit routing rule away from a manual workaround. It does not name the sibling `ghl_project_get_space_statuses` or state when that one should be picked instead, so the alternative space is only implied.

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