kitty.tickets.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core action (listing tickets) and the existence of optional filters, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, default sorting, or whether all statuses are included. This is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word 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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not explain what the returned list contains, how to combine filters, the meaning of limit, or how this tool relates to other ticket tools. The agent lacks sufficient detail to correctly and confidently invoke it.

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 only 17% (only projectSlug is described). The description merely says 'optional filters' without enumerating or explaining the specific parameters (label, limit, status, assignee, parentId). It does not compensate sufficiently for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 'tickets' scoped to 'a project', making its function distinct from sibling tools like kitty.ticket.get (single ticket) and kitty.ticket.create. The optional filters hint further clarifies its purpose.

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 phrase 'for a project' provides clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as using kitty.ticket.get for a single ticket. This is a minor gap compared to a fully explicit guideline.

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