List Tickets Linked to Doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Find all tickets referencing a documentation path.' It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, how path matching works (exact vs. partial), whether indirect references are included, or what the returned ticket list contains. The word 'Find' weakly implies a read operation, but meaningful behavioral context is absent.

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, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though it could have used one more sentence to clarify parameter roles.

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 two-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description captures the core relationship (tickets → doc path) but omits parameter semantics and usage differentiation. It is minimally complete but leaves an agent without enough guidance to confidently distinguish this from similar list/search tools or to understand projectKey's role.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only hints at docPath through 'documentation path' and says nothing about projectKey. The agent is left to infer that projectKey scopes the project, which is not stated anywhere. This does not adequately compensate for the total lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('all tickets referencing a documentation path'), making the query intent unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool kanban_list_doc_links, which performs the reverse direction (docs linked to a ticket). This is a strong, specific purpose statement.

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 the use case: given a documentation path, retrieve tickets that reference it. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like kanban_search_tickets or kanban_find_ticket, nor does it provide exclusions. Context is clear but usage boundaries are left to inference.

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