glpi_search_tickets

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

Without any annotations, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It mentions pagination and filtering but omits critical read-only status, return format, or default limits. For a search operation, the lack of side-effect clarity is notable but not disclosed.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then references the parameters. No wasted words; it efficiently communicates the tool's core functionality.

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 search endpoint, the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks important context like response structure, default pagination behavior, or examples, especially since no output schema is present. It's minimally sufficient but leaves room for ambiguity in advanced cases.

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 is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds grouping (pagination vs filter) and clarifies that 'filter' uses RSQL, but this repeats the schema's intent without additional semantic depth. Baseline of 3 for high coverage 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?

The description 'Busca e lista tickets' clearly states the action (search/list) and resource (tickets). It differentiates itself from siblings like glpi_get_ticket (single ticket) and other entity searches, though it could be more explicit about its exclusive use for listing with filters.

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 description implies usage for searching tickets with pagination and filters, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It stops at delivering the core function without guidance on selection among similar 'search' tools.

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