get_related_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the multi-step behavior: vector embeddings, AI re-ranking, and returning relevance scores. This goes beyond the schema and gives useful insight into how results are produced. It does not disclose potential limitations like only page 1 supported, but that is already in the schema.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a numbered process list, and a use-case list. It is informative but slightly verbose, with some redundancy in the use cases (e.g., 'Discovering patterns' and 'Finding similar issues' overlap).

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 description covers purpose, method, and use cases, and the output schema exists to detail return values. It lacks explicit mentions of error handling or empty results, but for a read-only semantic search tool with good schema coverage, it is sufficiently 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 coverage for parameters is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., page has default and pagination note). The description adds little specific parameter semantics beyond mapping 'given ticket' to task_id, so the 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's purpose: 'Find tickets semantically related to a given ticket using vector similarity and AI re-ranking.' This includes a specific verb, resource, and method, and distinguishes it from siblings like search_tickets and get_ticket_details by emphasizing semantic relatedness.

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 'This is useful for' section provides clear contexts for using the tool, such as 'Finding similar issues or tickets' and 'Discovering patterns across related tickets.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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