list_severities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state permissions, error handling, or response size limits. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 with no wasted words. Every part serves a purpose.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., array of objects with id and name), which could leave an agent uncertain about how to parse the response.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of listing severities ('use these IDs when creating/updating issues'), which goes beyond the schema's simple parameter description.

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 it lists issue severities for a project, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_priorities, list_issue_statuses) by focusing on severities.

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 to 'use these IDs when creating/updating issues', providing clear usage context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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