list_priorities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adequately describes the read-only nature (listing priorities) but does not disclose any potential side effects, pagination, or ordering. For a simple list, this is minimally acceptable.

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 conveys the purpose and a usage hint with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and 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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides enough context: what it does and how the output is used. It could mention whether the list is sorted or includes inactive priorities, but is complete enough for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with description), but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema states project_id is a required number; the description does not elaborate on its meaning or source.

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 'List all issue priorities for a project' and provides additional context that the returned IDs are used when creating/updating issues. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_issue_statuses or list_issue_types by specifying the resource 'priorities'.

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 indicates that the tool should be used to obtain IDs for creating/updating issues, providing clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the hint is sufficient for an agent to understand the typical workflow.

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