get_priorities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a formatted list but doesn't specify format details, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 concise with two short sentences, but it could be more front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the second sentence 'Returns: 格式化的優先級列表' (Returns: formatted priority list) is redundant with the first and adds minimal value. It's not wasteful but could be tighter by integrating the return information into the main statement.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or integration with siblings. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for this dimension. It correctly indicates no inputs are required by omitting parameter details.

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 tool's purpose: '取得所有可用的議題優先級列表' (Get all available issue priority lists). It specifies the verb '取得' (get) and resource '議題優先級列表' (issue priority lists), making the action and target clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue_statuses' or 'get_trackers', which follow a similar pattern for other 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, context for retrieving priorities (e.g., before creating an issue), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_issue' or 'search_issues' that might include priority data. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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