Get Tickets

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context about being a bulk call and advising selective use, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not mention error conditions or response format, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by practical usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward bulk-read tool, the description adequately conveys purpose and usage. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the phrase 'full bodies' indicating what is returned. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 already documents both parameters (ids and root) with full descriptions, including an example for ids and default for root. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 it retrieves full bodies for a list of Ticket ids in one call, distinguishing it from siblings like get_board and list_efforts by emphasizing bulk retrieval. The verb 'get' and resource 'Ticket' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after get_board and only for tickets actually worked, providing clear sequencing and scope. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like listing efforts or retrieving the board.

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