list_importance_levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates it is a read-only list operation, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or whether it returns all levels at once. The brevity is a liability.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes a helpful usage note. No extraneous words, highly efficient.

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's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and usage. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., fields like name, id) which would be useful for agents.

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 schema has 0% coverage on parameter descriptions. The description does not explain the projectId parameter beyond its role; it only adds context. While the single parameter's purpose is somewhat inferable, the description adds minimal value over the bare 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 action (list importance levels), the resource (in a project), and the usage context (used as importanceLevelId when creating work items). This differentiates it from siblings like create_importance_level or get_importance_level.

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 when to use this tool (to get available importance levels for a project), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_importance_level for a single level.

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