list_tickets

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 only says 'filtered by' without disclosing that filters are optional (each is optional per schema), what happens when no filters are supplied (e.g., returns all tickets?), pagination behavior, or response format. The phrase 'filtered by' could even mislead an agent into thinking a filter is required.

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, compact sentence that directly states the tool's action and filters. Every word earns its place, with 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?

For a list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It lacks essential context such as whether filters can be combined, whether an empty filter list returns all tickets, pagination or result size limits, and how this tool differs from search_tickets. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 100%, and the description merely restates the parameter names (bin, parent, child) without adding extra semantic meaning. The word 'or' might imply exclusivity, but it is ambiguous. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description adds no meaningful value beyond the baseline.

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') and resource ('tickets'), and clarifies the filtering dimensions (bin, parent, child). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticket (single ticket) and search_tickets (full-text search).

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 a use case: listing tickets with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_tickets or get_ticket, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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