Get ticket rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the identification mechanism ('by ID'), which the schema already conveys, so it contributes little behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, resource, and scoping key immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a get-by-ID tool surrounded by many rule-related siblings, the description omits any distinguishing or usage context, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 100% with detailed enum docs for fields and format, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional meaning for fields, format, or expand_dropdowns, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (ticket business rule / RuleTicket) scoped by ID, which distinguishes it from the list-oriented siblings like glpi_list_rules and glpi_list_rule_ticket_criteria. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other rule endpoints (create_rule_ticket, list_rules), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With many sibling rule tools (list_rules, list_rule_ticket_criteria, create_rule_ticket), the agent gets no guidance on selecting this one versus fetching criteria/actions separately.

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