list_priorities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return type ('list of available issue priorities') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the list is static or dynamic. The description adds basic context but lacks operational details.

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?

Perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning authentication or behavioral constraints for a fully complete picture.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools with complete schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of available issue priorities'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique role in providing priority data for use with create_issue/update_issue, unlike list_issues or list_statuses which handle different entities.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Used for priority_id in create_issue / update_issue.' This provides clear context for its application and distinguishes it from alternatives like list_statuses or list_trackers that serve different purposes in the issue management workflow.

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