autotask_list_ticket_priorities

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

The description implies a read-only, listing behavior, and with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden. It states it lists 'all available ticket priorities', which is sufficient. However, it doesn't mention if the list is static or dynamic, but that is minor given the simplicity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word is necessary. No fluff.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple listing operation, the description is complete enough. It explains what it returns and how to use it. Could include that it returns a list of IDs and names, but not necessary for functionality.

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 input schema has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional param info.

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 lists all available ticket priorities in Autotask and explicitly mentions its use case: finding priority values for filtering or creating tickets. It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this to find priority values for filtering or creating tickets.' This provides clear context without needing exclusions, as there are no alternative tools for listing priorities among siblings.

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