jira_get_priorities

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that. With no output schema, it should disclose what is returned (priority names, IDs, ordering) but does not.

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 words, front-loaded with the verb, no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be informative.

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 (no params, read-only), so a short description is defensible, but with no output schema the description never states what the priorities list contains or how to use it. Minimum viable for a metadata lookup.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and the description adds nothing, but there is nothing to document.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('priorities'), so an agent knows this retrieves the available Jira priority values. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling metadata-list tools (jira_get_statuses, jira_get_issue_types, jira_get_fields), and it essentially restates the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like jira_get_fields or jira_get_statuses, and no context such as 'use to resolve valid priority names/IDs before creating or updating an issue.' Nothing is said about when-not to use it.

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