Open tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the default exclusion of closed tickets and the priority-descending ordering, both of which affect result interpretation. It stops short of describing pagination/total behavior, keeping it out of the top score.

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?

A single 15-word sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the ordering, then the optional filters. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero-required-parameter, three-parameter list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. With no output schema, a brief note on the returned fields or result count would be the only missing piece.

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% and each parameter (site, limit, priority) is documented in the schema itself, including the enum values and default. The description adds only a loose mention that site and priority are optional filters, which is already implied by the zero-required-parameter schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (List) and resource (tickets) with the default filter (not closed), the sort order (highest priority first), and the optional filters. An agent can tell immediately what this returns without opening the schema, and no sibling tool overlaps with 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 'not closed' implicitly scopes usage and the filters imply the narrowing options, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternative named (e.g., a closed-tickets or single-ticket lookup tool). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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