Get ticket

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful return-shape behavior: dropdown IDs are returned with names beside them (including localized *_name fields), and relationship data is deliberately excluded from the ticket object.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the return-shape detail and the routing note. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 re-explained, and the description covers the key gotcha (missing relationship fields) plus where to get them. For a single-item read tool this is essentially complete.

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% and each parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The naming-behavior sentence touches on the default (names added beside IDs) that the expand_dropdowns parameter toggles, but it does not add format or syntax beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Retrieve a single ticket by ID.' The word 'single' (and 'by ID') cleanly separates it from the list-style siblings such as glpi_list_tickets and glpi_list_my_tickets without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing for the common confusion: requesters, technicians and observers are not ticket fields, so use glpi_list_ticket_users / glpi_list_ticket_groups instead. It is clear context, though it does not explicitly contrast against glpi_list_tickets or glpi_get_ticket_stats.

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