redmine_list_priorities

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic listing action. It does not mention return format, sorting, pagination, or permissions, leaving the agent to infer the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 adequately covers the core function, but since there is no output schema, it could have enriched the context by describing what the returned data contains (e.g., priority IDs and names). The tool is simple, so the omission is a moderate gap rather than a critical one.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because the input schema is empty and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 'List all available issue priorities' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (issue priorities), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like redmine_list_statuses and redmine_list_trackers. The scope 'all available' adds completeness without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without any context, exclusions, or references to related operations like creating issues or using priority IDs.

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