autotask_list_ticket_priorities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately conveys that the tool is a read-only listing operation with no side effects, implicitly indicating safety. The verb 'List' and lack of destructive hints are sufficient for this simple tool.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its function. It could optionally mention the expected return format (e.g., id and name), but this is not critical for usability.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 ('List') and resource ('all available ticket priorities'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling tools that perform searches or mutations on specific entities.

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 states to use this tool 'to find priority values for filtering or creating tickets,' providing clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is straightforward.

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