list_ticket_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results flag inactive and system fields, which is useful context, but says nothing about auth scope, rate limits, or pagination. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 fits the modest extra value.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading what the tool returns and then the use case. No filler, though the second sentence is a soft hint rather than high-value content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and read-only annotations cover the mutation question. The remaining gap is the include_inactive parameter and its default, which neither schema text nor description addresses.

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 0% and the single parameter include_inactive (default true) is never explained. The mention of 'inactive' gestures at the concept but does not clarify whether the toggle filters or merely annotates them, leaving the agent to infer behavior from a default it cannot see in the text.

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?

States a specific resource ('ticket fields') with an inventory/list action and adds what the output reveals (inactive vs system flags). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_sla_policies or find_tickets, though it does not explicitly name a competitor to avoid.

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?

'Useful before cleaning up forms' gives a use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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