Find Ticket by ID

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Look up' implies a read operation, and it usefully discloses that completed tickets include completionSummary. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating or describe any error behavior if the ticket is not found.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional return-value detail is brief and relevant.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what context is included and highlights completionSummary, leaving only edge cases like missing tickets or exact response layout to the schema.

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 0%, but the single parameter ticketId is self-explanatory and the title reinforces that it is an ID. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, yet the parameter's semantics are obvious from its name and type.

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 a specific verb ('look up'), a clear resource ('single ticket'), and the contextual scope ('with project, column, and epic context'). It also notes the return value, distinguishing it from broader queries like kanban_search_tickets or kanban_find_column_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 description implies use when a single ticket's full details are needed by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a simple lookup, but exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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