Api findings priority retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether this returns a static enum of priority choices, a ranked list of findings, or whether it requires auth context.

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?

There is no wasted text, but the single token is pure under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is communicated.

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 output schema, the description should explain what is returned — the set of priority choices, a per-finding ranking, or something else. It provides none of that, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or decide confidently between this and the severity/status variants.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 is the snake_case tool name restated verbatim ("api_findings_priority_retrieve"), which is essentially a tautology. It implies a read of finding priority values, but states no verb, scope, or output, and does not distinguish it from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_findings_severity_retrieve.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is for fetching priority enum values vs. filtering findings by priority.

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