list_priorities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it lists priorities, implying read-only, but fails to disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or behavioral traits such as sorting or pagination.

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 a single sentence, short and to the point, but lacks necessary detail for effective tool usage. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a parameter with no description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, behavior with or without the optional id, or other contextual details needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has one optional integer parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain this parameter, and the examples given (string values) are inconsistent with the integer type, causing confusion.

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 incident priorities and provides examples (Low, Medium, High, Urgent, Critical), which distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling list.

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 given on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_statuses or list_incident_types. The description lacks explicit context for appropriate usage.

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