Read a ticket’s stage

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 mentions the output includes history with actor and timestamps, but does not disclose potential side effects (likely none), data freshness, or any access constraints. The description gives a partial picture but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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, front-loaded sentence with a useful usage hint. The phrase 'where a ticket sits' is slightly verbose, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema; the description adequately explains the returned data (stage, next, estimate, history). However, without annotations, it could add more context about required permissions or typical use cases, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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%, providing clear definitions for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond what the schema states, so an adequate baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads a ticket's stage and provides comprehensive pipeline info. It distinguishes from siblings like set_ticket_stage and list_tickets, though the purpose could be more concise.

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 use for checking progress without reading the channel, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_channel_messages or list_tickets. The context is clear but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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