List ticket users

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the returned field names (user_name beside users_id, type_name) and the meaning of the type codes. It does not describe pagination, but for a small list operation that is minor.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the operation and scope. The type-code legend is compact and 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 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description need not explain return format, and it still helpfully decodes the type field. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though explicit routing guidance would complete it.

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 ticketId, fields, and format are fully documented in the schema. The description's type mapping concerns returned values rather than inputs and adds little parameter-level meaning, so the 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 (List) and resource (users linked to a ticket), and enumerates the three link roles (requesters, observers, assigned). This clearly separates it from siblings like glpi_add_ticket_user and glpi_delete_ticket_user as well as glpi_list_ticket_groups.

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 purpose implies when to use it (retrieving a ticket's users), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance (e.g., glpi_list_users to enumerate people globally). Usage is left to inference.

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