alga_priorities_list

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. The description's one added behavioral fact is that results are paginated ("one page at a time"), which is useful but duplicated by the page/limit parameters; nothing is said about auth requirements, default ordering, or result shape. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 fits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the filtering capabilities second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, an agent has what it needs to call it correctly: the resource, the two meaningful filter dimensions, and the fact that results are paged. Only minor gaps remain, such as the default page size and the absence of any guidance on combining filters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the two least self-evident filters: search is a name search, and item_type is "what they apply to" (ticket vs project_task). The remaining four (page, limit, sort, order) are not discussed, but their types, defaults, and enums make them largely self-documenting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List priorities") and adds the pacing detail "one page at a time." That is enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool returns, though nothing distinguishes it from the other list-style siblings (e.g. alga_statuses_list) beyond the resource name.

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?

"Use to browse or filter by priority name search or by what they apply to (item_type)" gives a use context and maps two of the six parameters to intents. It offers no when-not guidance, no mention of the get-by-id sibling, and no statement that all parameters are optional so an unfiltered call is valid — usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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