glpi_get_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavioral context: the response includes the full ticket context and timeline in one call. However, it does not disclose output structure, error behavior, permissions, or any other operational traits.

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 that communicates the core value proposition without wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description is largely sufficient: it explains the complete context scope and the timeline inclusion. With no output schema, a bit more detail about response fields would be helpful, but the sibling tools and simple nature keep the gap small.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter `id` with a description, so the schema covers 100% of parameter semantics. The description does not add additional meaning beyond implying that this ID targets a specific ticket.

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 returns the complete context of one ticket, including timeline, and distinguishes it from the sibling glpi_get_ticket_timeline by avoiding multiple calls. It uses a specific verb and resource ("get ticket") with a clear scope.

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 "sem precisar de múltiplas chamadas" implies this tool is the preferred single-call option for full ticket context, effectively contrasting with glpi_get_ticket_timeline. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to use the timeline-only sibling instead.

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