list_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('List of tickets') but does not clarify side effects, permissions, privacy scoping, or behavior like pagination. The word 'list' implies read-only, but that's not explicit, and there's no mention of potential limitations or edge cases.

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 concise parameter documentation, with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the parameter lines are clearly separated. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple list operation with an output schema available, the description covers the essential inputs and return type. However, the discrepancy between 'optional status' and the required status in the schema creates ambiguity. Additional context about allowed status values or employee ID format would improve completeness, but the tool is not overly complex.

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 description provides parameter meanings (employee_id and status) which is helpful given 0% schema coverage. However, it contradicts the input schema by labeling status as optional while the schema marks both as required. This undermines the trust and clarity of the parameter documentation.

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-resource pair, 'List tickets for an employee', which clearly identifies the tool's function. It is distinguished from sibling tools like create_ticket and update_ticket_status, and the scope ('for an employee') adds precision beyond just 'list tickets'.

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 phrase 'for an employee with optional status filter' conveys when to use the tool—when you need a list of an employee's tickets. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_employee_details for other employee info'), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance but is clear enough for the primary use case.

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