List ticket groups

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the burden is light. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the shape of each returned group (group_name beside groups_id and type_name) and the meaning of the type codes, plus the note that type_name is localized.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The type-code mapping is a terse trailing fragment; no wasted prose, though the parenthetical enumerations add slight density.

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 simple read-only, single-required-param tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is essentially complete — it even pre-describes the return fields. It only lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over other listing tools.

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 all three parameters (ticketId, fields, format) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's details (group_name, groups_id, type_name, type codes) describe return fields rather than parameters, so it adds nothing to parameter meaning.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('groups linked to a ticket') and scope ('requester, observer, assigned'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like glpi_list_ticket_users or glpi_add_ticket_group without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to enumerate the groups attached to a given ticket. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as glpi_list_groups (all groups) vs this ticket-scoped list, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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