debt_prioritize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'analyze and prioritize.' It does not clarify whether the tool reads files only, modifies them, calls an external service, or returns a prioritized list. The mention of 'impact and effort' provides some context but not enough behavioral detail.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is concise with no filler, though it sacrifices necessary behavioral and parameter detail for brevity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only a sparse description, so the description alone must inform the agent about return values, side effects, and invocation context. It does not specify what the prioritization output looks like, whether the tool only analyzes or also modifies code, or what role api_key plays. The description is inadequate for safe and effective invocation.

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 only 50%, with the api_key parameter documented only as a string and not explained. The description does not explain how api_key is used or how 'impact and effort' relate to the parameters, leaving the agent to guess. The directory parameter is minimally covered by the schema, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 analyzes and prioritizes tech debt items, naming the resource and the prioritization criteria (impact and effort). It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like debt_scan_todos and debt_generate_report, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as debt_scan_todos or debt_generate_report. It also does not state prerequisites, such as whether the directory must contain an existing debt inventory or whether the api_key is required for external analysis.

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