prioritize_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the outcome of identifying quick wins and critical blockers, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, returns a new list, or modifies the input. It also omits return format and any side effects, which is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It includes useful, specific details (quick wins, critical blockers) without redundancy, and does not repeat schema information. The only minor padding is 'Intelligently', but it does not detract from overall efficiency.

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 description gives a high-level overview of the tool's function and outputs categories, but with no output schema it fails to fully describe the return structure. It also does not explain how prioritization criteria affect the output or how the 'results' object is processed, leaving gaps for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only referencing 'specified criteria' which is already detailed in the criteria enum. It does not elaborate on the 'results' or 'limit' parameters, which are well-covered by 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to prioritize accessibility issues based on specified criteria. It adds specificity by identifying 'quick wins' and 'critical blockers', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like filter_issues or search_issues. The verb 'prioritize' and resource 'accessibility issues' are explicit.

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 for prioritization tasks via 'based on specified criteria' and 'identifying quick wins and critical blockers', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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