List priorities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The phrase 'available on the site' adds a small amount of behavioral context by signaling results are site-scoped, but nothing about caching, stability, or result shape is disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding, and the site-scoping qualifier is included. It is arguably too terse for a fragment, but nothing wasted.

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 zero-required-param read-only lookup with full schema documentation and annotations, this is close to sufficient. The only real gap is that the description does not state that the result is a flat list of name/id pairs, which would help since there is no output schema.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed guidance on cloud id vs. site name vs. URL and the omit-to-use-default behavior. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource returned (priority names) and scopes it to a site, which is enough to know the general purpose. However, it uses a sentence fragment with no verb and never differentiates from sibling reference-data lookups such as jira_get_issue_types, jira_get_fields, or jira_get_link_types.

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 call this versus the other enum-lookup siblings, no stated prerequisite (e.g. selecting a site first), and no mention of what to do with the result. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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