getIssuePriorities

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as the output format (JSON/XML) or that it returns a list of priorities. It does not contradict the annotation, so a middle score is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 brief (three words), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It supplies almost no information beyond the name, so the brevity harms clarity rather than helping it.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description should at least mention the required parameter and what the returned list looks like. It also lacks any context about the format toggle. The given description is inadequate for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly beyond guessing from the name.

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 requires a pathParams object with a nested required 'format' enum (json/xml), but the description makes no mention of this parameter or its purpose. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate and explain parameter semantics, but it eliminates all possibility of understanding the format requirement. This is a significant gap.

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 'List issue priorities' clearly states the verb (list) and the resource (issue priorities), which is specific enough to distinguish it from the many sibling tools that concern other entities (statuses, trackers, categories). However, it does not add any further clarification about scope (e.g., all priorities or per project), so it lacks explicit differentiation beyond the resource 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 tool versus alternatives. For example, the sibling list includes getIssueStatuses and getTrackers, which are similar lookup tools; the description offers no context on how issue priorities differ or when one would choose this over those. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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