list_task_priorities

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral information beyond these annotations, such as pagination behavior, ordering, or typical use cases. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 extremely short (two words) but this brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks a verb or any context, so it does not earn its place as a helpful sentence.

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 that this is a list operation with no output schema, the description should at least state what is returned or how results are scoped. The current description leaves too much to inference, even though annotations and schema are solid.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, order_by) with 100% coverage. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, but the schema suffices; baseline is 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 'Task priorities' is a bare noun phrase that simply restates the tool's name without expressing an action. It does not clarify that this is a list/read operation, nor does it distinguish it from related list tools like list_task_status or list_tasks.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as list_task_status, or mention any prerequisites or context.

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