Get Priorities

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description adds useful non-obvious behavior: the result is organization-wide and a queue may still reject a priority it does not use. It does not overstate mutation or introduce contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and purpose, the second adds a critical scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema available, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is returned, the accepted field compatibility, and the organization-wide scope. No missing prerequisite or postcondition is apparent.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description instead clarifies useful output semantics (id/key compatibility with issue_create/issue_update).

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get the issue priority levels of Yandex Tracker') and enumerates example values, making it clearly distinct from sibling lookup tools like get_statuses and get_resolutions. The tie to the priority field accepted by issue_create/issue_update further pins down its purpose.

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?

It provides clear usage context by stating the returned id/key are what issue_create and issue_update accept in priority, which tells an agent when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the lookup is self-contained and the sibling list contains no competing priority tool.

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