get_issue_severities

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose safety and side effects. It only notes default session usage and implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state idempotency, authentication needs, or any potential side effects.

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 two sentences (15 words), front-loads the purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter default but omits what the output contains (e.g., list of severity names/IDs) and any project-specific constraints. It meets minimum viability but could be more complete.

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 add meaning. It explains session_id's default behavior and implies project_id's role (the project whose severities are listed), but does not fully describe both parameters beyond basic context.

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 available severities for issues within a specific project, using a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('severities'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_issue_priorities or get_issue_statuses by focusing on severities.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_issue or list_issues). The description only mentions default session behavior, which is a parameter detail, not usage context.

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