list_desk_priorities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: acceptance of numeric ID or fuzzy-matched name for desk, precedence rules, and client-side fuzzy filtering for priorities. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or non-destructive, which is implied but not confirmed for an agent.

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 three sentences covering purpose, parameter usage, and a behavioral detail. Every sentence is relevant and efficiently communicates essential information without 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?

The description covers the primary use case and parameter options but omits details about the response format (e.g., list of priorities with IDs and names) and pagination behavior (limit/offset). Given 5 parameters and no output schema, more context on expected output would improve completeness for an agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context beyond the schema, such as the precedence of desk_id over desk_name when both are provided, but the schema already describes this. The client-side fuzzy match for priority_name is also described in the schema. Thus, minimal additional meaning.

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 lists configured priorities for a desk in TiFlux, with the specific use case of discovering priority IDs before creating or updating tickets. It uniquely identifies the resource (desk priorities) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_desks or list_tickets, which cover different entities.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('para descobrir os IDs de prioridade antes de criar ou atualizar tickets'), explains parameter alternatives (desk_id vs desk_name with precedence), and describes the client-side fuzzy filter behavior for priority_name. No exclusions are needed due to lack of overlapping siblings.

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