totvs_ticket_detalhe

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about the returned information (e.g., solicitante, colaboradores, status), which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentence plus a parameter clarification, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, idempotent read), the description adequately covers what the tool does. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need elaboration. The description lists enough details to understand the scope.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter ticket_id, but the tool description explains what ticket_id is and provides an example format ('ex: '29586485''). This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare property definition.

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 provides 'complete detail of a ticket' and lists specific data fields (requester, collaborators, organization, status, product/module). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like totvs_ticket_comentarios (comments) and totvs_tickets_listar (list) by emphasizing completeness.

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 implicitly suggests use when full ticket details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for comments or list of tickets). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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