get_issue_priorities

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

With no annotations, the description correctly conveys a read-only listing operation. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as session handling beyond defaulting, or any prerequisites like project existence. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not needing return format), the description is fairly complete for a simple list tool. It covers the main action and a key parameter behavior, though it could mention prerequisites like project existence.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for session_id by explaining default behavior, but does not clarify project_id beyond being the project identifier. This leaves the required parameter underspecified.

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 it lists priorities for a specific project, with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('priorities'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue_statuses by focusing on priorities, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_issue_severities or get_issue_types. The only usage hint is about session_id defaults, which is parameter-level, not contextual.

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