list_importance_levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add the note about default levels, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, or whether custom levels are included. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 filler. It conveys the core purpose and an important default in a compact, efficient manner.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, but the description does not mention the return structure or how the format parameter affects the output. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is only partially complete, though it does give the essential purpose.

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 covers the 'format' parameter with a clear description, but 'project_id' is undocumented. The description adds meaning by saying 'a project's', which clarifies that project_id identifies the project, but it does not elaborate on format values beyond what the schema already says. Overall, it partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('a project's importance/priority levels'), and it distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools such as list_categories and list_tags by specifying the focus on importance/priority levels. The parenthetical '(Urgent/High/Normal/Low by default)' adds detail about the content.

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 gives no explicit 'when to use' or 'instead of' guidance, but the purpose is self-evident. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the usage is merely implied by the verb and resource.

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