get_automation_priorities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes 'names and IDs' but doesn't describe the return format beyond that, nor does it address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified for a tool with parameters.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with an emoji, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension while being complete enough for the stated 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context about when to use it, what the output looks like beyond 'names and IDs', or how it fits into broader workflows. For a read operation with good schema coverage, this is adequate but leaves gaps in usage guidance and behavioral transparency.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between project alias/key/ID or when to use each format). This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'available priorities for a project', including the specific output 'names and IDs'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on priorities rather than test cases, launches, or other project data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_automation_states' or 'get_project_milestones' that might also retrieve project metadata.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships to other tools like 'get_available_projects' (which might need to be called first) or 'get_automation_states' (which might retrieve related metadata). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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