List Tickera Ticket Templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive read operation. The description adds the context that templates are used on PDF/printed tickets and how the selected ID feeds into tickera_create_ticket_type, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like return structure, pagination, or required capabilities. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich, so a score of 3 is warranted.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place by either defining the resource or linking to its usage context. No fluff or repetition.

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 the simplicity of a one-parameter, read-only list tool with a 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns (templates), clarifies the formatting option via schema, and provides the exact use case, so an agent has sufficient information to select and invoke it 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 only parameter response_format is 100% covered by the schema with a clear description ('Output format: markdown for human-readable, json for machine-readable'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'List Tickera ticket templates' – a specific verb (List) + resource (ticket templates). It adds the context of PDF/printed tickets and explains the purpose of selecting a ticket_template ID for tickera_create_ticket_type, which distinguishes it from other Tickera list tools like tickera_list_ticket_types.

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?

Description explicitly instructs to use the tool to 'pick a ticket_template ID for tickera_create_ticket_type' and notes the fallback behavior ('if omitted there, the plugin uses the default template'). This provides clear when-to-use context and references the related creation tool, even though it doesn't name alternative listing tools.

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