List my tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the default filter (open only, not solved nor closed), the default ordering (most recently updated first), and the per-row payload (requesters/assigned/observers as {id,name}, status_name, my_roles).

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 scoping rule before defaults and row shape. No filler, and every clause carries actionable 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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and with annotations present the safety profile is covered; what remains (scope, defaults, role semantics, trigger phrases) is fully stated. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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% and five parameters carry enums, so the schema already documents role, sort, order, status, fields, format, range, and users_id thoroughly. The description reinforces a few defaults (open status, recency ordering, role meanings) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list tickets) plus the precise scoping rule: tickets of the connected user (or users_id) where they are requester, assigned technician, or observer. This scope implicitly and effectively distinguishes it from the sibling glpi_list_tickets, which lists tickets generally.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases ('meus chamados', 'my open tickets', 'tickets assigned to me') that map natural user requests to this tool. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it (e.g. use glpi_list_tickets for org-wide listings), so routing is guided but not fully closed.

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