op_list_priorities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return value is a list of priority names, but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or failure behavior; with the simple open-world list tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the action, resource, and purpose are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter read-only list, the description tells the agent what it returns (names) and why it matters (valid value for create/update). It relies on sibling context to infer this means work-package priorities, but no other return details are essential for such a simple 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 and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The phrase 'priority names' clarifies the kind of value the caller will receive but is not parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'List priority names', and states its purpose ('so a create or update can name one that exists'). It clearly differentiates from sibling list tools because it is the only one exposing priority values.

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 explicitly frames when the tool is useful: before a create or update that needs a valid priority name. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over status/project/type list siblings.

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