get_priorities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get all priorities' and does not mention pagination, search behavior, or the shape of the response. The phrase 'all' is also slightly misleading because page/limit parameters indicate paginated retrieval by default.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity leaves out behavioral context that would help an agent use the tool correctly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It does not explain return format, pagination semantics, or how this tool relates to the sibling 'list' and 'get_priority'. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context needed for correct invocation is incomplete.

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 page, limit, and search are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about these parameters, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all priorities'. It also implies a collection-level operation, which distinguishes it from the singular get_priority sibling. However, it does not clarify how it differs from the sibling 'list', so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list, get_priority, or search-related siblings. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this over a similar tool. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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