List Redmine Priorities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the return value is a list of priority names and IDs, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose details like ordering, pagination, or whether the list is sorted by Redmine's internal priority weight, but for a simple enumeration tool this is 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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the return-value note is separated clearly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and why to use it. The only minor omission is that it doesn't mention whether the list is ordered by priority weight, which could matter when an agent needs to pick the highest priority, but this is a small gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description adds the key semantic detail that the output contains names and IDs, which is the only information an agent needs to use the result. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available issue priorities in Redmine'), and explicitly frames the purpose as finding priority IDs. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like redmine_list_statuses or redmine_list_trackers, which target different Redmine enumerations.

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 says 'Use this to find priority IDs,' which gives a clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling list tools, the resource name itself disambiguates sufficiently. A small gap is the lack of an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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