get_priorities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful linkage context — that the output feeds mutating calls — but says nothing about result size, ordering, or the fact that it takes no arguments.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first names the resource and gives examples, the second explains the value of the return. The most actionable information (what it returns and why) is front-loaded.

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, no-argument, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke correctly and use the result. It stops short of describing the exact response shape (ID/name field names) or whether an empty list is possible.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. It correctly implies a parameterless global lookup rather than a filtered query.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get all available test case priorities') and even enumerates representative values (Critical, High, Medium, Low), so the agent immediately knows what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar lookup siblings like get_labels, get_statuses, or get_templates, though the parallel pattern makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Provides clear context: the returned priority IDs and names 'can be used when creating or updating test cases,' which tells the agent this is a prerequisite lookup for add_case/update_case. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, keeping it short of a 5.

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