zammad_get_ticket_thread

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

The description explains the combined API call behavior and details parameter effects (include_bodies, include_internal). With no annotations, it carries the full burden and does so well, though it does not mention error handling or rate limits.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds technical detail, third gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 4 parameters all described, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage adequately. Missing potential error or limit info, but sufficient for agent decision.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter meanings but does not add significant new information beyond the schema descriptions. The usage context is more about guidelines than parameter semantics.

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 the tool fetches a Zammad ticket and all its articles in one call, specifying the combined API endpoints. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'basher's get_ticket' and the use case for article bodies.

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 says 'Use this instead of basher's get_ticket whenever you need the actual article bodies for context.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and contrasts with an alternative tool.

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