ftrack_list_priorities

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the scope 'all available,' indicating no filtering or parameters, and 'list' implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose the output format or any side effects, though for a simple list tool this is somewhat sufficient.

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 a single, focused sentence: "List all available priorities." Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'list.' This is an ideal example of conciseness for a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately captures its function. It tells the agent that the tool lists all priorities, which is enough to select and invoke it. The only minor gap is not describing the return structure, but that is not critical for such a basic listing operation.

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 is empty. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies there are no inputs by saying 'all available' without any filters.

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 "List all available priorities" clearly states the verb (list), the resource (priorities), and the scope (all available). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ftrack_list_statuses and ftrack_list_types by explicitly naming 'priorities' as the resource, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: if you need a list of all priorities, call this tool. However, it provides no explicit context for when to use it over alternatives (e.g., statuses or types), nor does it mention any exclusions. This is baseline implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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