prioritize_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to disclose whether the tool mutates data, performance implications, output structure, or algorithm details, only hinting at two output categories ('quick wins', 'critical blockers').

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function and key output categories without any redundant words.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and nested 'results' object, the description is adequate but omits details on how the prioritization works, the format of the returned issues, and whether the input is consumed or just read, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds modest value by framing the output in terms of 'quick wins' and 'critical blockers', but does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 'prioritize' with a clear resource (accessibility issues) and adds concrete output categories ('quick wins', 'critical blockers'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like 'filter_issues' or 'search_issues'.

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 after an audit (taking 'results' as input) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, nor any when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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