get_priority

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but does not describe return format, error behavior when the ID is not found, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id tool and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 is complete for a simple single-item retrieval tool: it states what is retrieved and how (by id). The presence of an output schema (per context signals) means return values need not be described. However, it would benefit from mentioning how to obtain a priority_id or what happens if the ID is invalid, so it is not fully 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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds only 'by id', which does not meaningfully clarify the parameter beyond the schema's name and title. It does not explain the integer format, how to discover the ID, or any constraints. The description provides almost no added value for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('work package priority') and scope ('single... by id'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_priorities that return collections. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implies the user must have or know the priority_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_priorities, nor does it mention how to obtain valid IDs. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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