get_priorities

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., that values are static/enumerable reference data), so it neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool returns.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and it appropriately names what comes back (priority levels and keys). Combined with the readOnly annotation and zero-param schema, it is nearly complete; only the relationship to sibling lookup tools is unstated.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no input is required, and there is no parameter documentation gap to compensate for.

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 ('Получить') and resource ('уровни приоритета и ключи'), and even names the downstream purpose (creating or changing tasks). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from reference-data siblings like get_statuses, get_issue_types or get_resolutions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'для создания или изменения задач' implies the tool is used to fetch valid priority keys before create/update calls, which is useful implied context. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling reference-data tools.

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