glpi_get_ticket_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation ('returns stats') but does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or output format. It is not misleading, but it is severely lacking in transparency.

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, short sentence with no fluff. It is concise and front-loaded, but it is almost too terse to be helpful. The length is appropriate for the simple purpose, but it lacks the substance needed for a full tool description.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what statistics are returned or any constraints. It does neither, making it incomplete for an agent trying to understand the tool's behavior and output. The simple schema does not compensate for the missing context.

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 already documents the single parameter 'id' with 'ID do ticket' (100% coverage). The description adds no further meaning or usage details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it does not enhance the schema.

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 states that the tool returns ticket statistics, which is a clear purpose but essentially restates the tool name without adding detail about what specific statistics are provided. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like glpi_get_ticket or glpi_get_ticket_timeline, other than the name itself, so it is not a 4 or 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., glpi_get_ticket, glpi_search_tickets). The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives, so it fails to help the agent choose correctly.

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