Get Priorities

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the scope ('available in Yandex Tracker' and 'can be used in issues'), which goes beyond the annotation. No additional behavioral traits like pagination or auth are disclosed, but the output schema covers return details.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and scope without any filler or redundant phrasing. It earns its place entirely and has no wasted words.

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?

With no parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema present, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to select and call this tool. The description's statement of scope completes the picture for a simple metadata-lookup tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete and there is nothing to explain. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details. Baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'all priorities available in Yandex Tracker', with the functional scope 'can be used in issues'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_statuses or get_issue_types, which target different reference data.

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 clearly implies the use case: an agent should call this when it needs the list of priorities available for issues in Yandex Tracker. It does not name alternative tools, but for a no-argument lookup there are no obvious competing tools for this specific data.

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