get_priorities

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of ordering, pagination, permissions, error behavior, or the returned priority object structure, and no output schema exists to compensate.

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 three words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to meaning.

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?

For a parameterless list operation, this is minimally usable: it tells the agent that calling the tool returns available priorities. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not describe the priority object shape or the exact meaning of 'available', which could matter for downstream processing.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The schema fully covers the empty input, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('List') and a concrete resource ('priorities'), making the core purpose clear. It stops short of a 5 because it does not clarify scope—whether these are all priorities globally or project-specific—or what fields a priority object contains.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus similar sibling list tools such as get_statuses, get_case_statuses, or get_templates. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when 'priorities' is the right resource.

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