List ticket rule criteria

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 by structured data. The description adds a modest structural note that criteria are RuleTicket sub-items, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size beyond what the schema/output schema already provide.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every clause earns its place.

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 annotations, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the structured fields carry most of the burden, so the description is functional but thin. It lacks guidance on relationship to the generic rule-criteria sibling, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face here.

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%, so range, fields, format, ruleId, and expand_dropdowns are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond restating that a specific rule is targeted, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (criteria/conditions of a ticket rule), and clarifies the criteria are sub-items of RuleTicket. This is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling glpi_list_rule_criteria (generic) or glpi_get_rule_ticket, so an agent must infer the ticket-rule scoping from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over glpi_list_rule_criteria or glpi_get_rule_ticket, nor does it mention that a ruleId is required to scope the query. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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