List Redmine issue priorities

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool never changes Redmine data, that upstream errors may surface as 401/403/404 without response body exposure, and that ordering, custom-field nulls, omitted version-dependent fields, and result mapping have specific behavior. This gives agents practical expectations not available from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and endpoint, and every subsequent sentence adds operational detail such as ranking order, field mapping, version availability, browser-link absence, and error behavior. It is dense rather than verbose, though a few edge-case details could be considered extra for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Covers the endpoint, parameter restrictions, ordering, field mapping, version caveats, upstream error handling, lack of browser links, and non-mutation guarantee. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is already covered, and no critical calling guidance appears 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating there are no query, include, or pagination controls, which helps the agent avoid inventing unsupported options.

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?

Clearly states the verb and resource: 'Read all Redmine issue priorities from GET /enumerations/issue_priorities.json...' and defines scope with 'shared global priorities' and 'lower-to-higher position order.' This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_issue_statuses and list_document_categories.

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?

Provides clear context by specifying this is a read-only enumeration for the configured Redmine API user and explicitly notes the endpoint accepts no query, include, or pagination controls. It does not name alternatives or direct when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource is unique among the sibling tools.

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