List Tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds a behavioral scope ('for the current user') and clearly indicates a non-destructive list operation, with no contradiction to the annotations.

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 concise sentence that uses no unnecessary words and focuses directly on the tool's action and scope.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource and scope. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or return shape, but these are not critical for basic usage of a list operation.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty input schema provides no parameter meanings, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details; it clearly states what entity is being listed.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('support tickets') and a clear scope ('for the current user'), which distinguishes it well from sibling tools like getTicket, createTicket, updateTicket, addTicketMessage, and streamTicketMessages.

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 when to use the tool by saying it lists tickets for the current user, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as getTicket for a single ticket or createTicket for making a new one. Guidance is present by implication but not stated.

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