autotask_list_ticket_priorities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only listing operation, which is safe and non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention authentication requirements. For a simple list, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous words. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It states 'list all available ticket priorities' which implies a list of values, but it does not specify the structure (e.g., IDs and names). Given the simplicity, it is partially complete but could be more precise.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% schema description coverage). The baseline is 3, and the description adds value by explaining the intended use of the output (for filtering or creating tickets). No additional parameter details are needed.

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 clearly states the tool lists all available ticket priorities. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (ticket priorities). The sibling tools include other list operations (e.g., list_categories, list_ticket_statuses), but this tool is uniquely identified by its focus on priorities, making it distinguishable.

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 says 'Use this to find priority values for filtering or creating tickets,' which provides clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. While it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, the context is sufficient given the simplicity of the operation.

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