Get Tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about batching ('in one call') and about resolving legacy ticket handles, but it does not disclose failure behavior or limits when invalid ids are passed.

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 short sentences with no filler. The most important scoping instruction is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only batch-fetch tool with a complete parameter schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It lacks an explicit output shape description, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 the schema fully documents ids and root. The description's phrase 'Full bodies' hints at return semantics rather than adding new parameter meaning, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full bodies for a list of Ticket ids, in one call'. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_board by framing get_tickets as the detail-fetch step after board listing.

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 gives explicit sequencing ('Use after get_board') and call-scoping guidance ('only for the Tickets you actually work'). It does not name alternatives like update_ticket or create_tickets, but the primary routing decision is clear.

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