List tickets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real context beyond them: the visibility scoping by connected user, the default sort (most recently updated first), and that names are rendered in the GLPI user's language. It stops short of describing pagination semantics for the range parameter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering, then filtering, then the routing alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information; the row-fields sentence is long but useful for planning output handling.

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 explained, yet the description still previews the row shape (status_name, type_name, priority_name, category_name, requesters/technicians). Combined with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, nothing needed to call it 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 every parameter already carries its own enum and description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's status example ('open' = not solved nor closed) and sort-default mention largely restate what the schema documents, adding marginal value.

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 GLPI tickets'), plus the exact scope ('the whole instance, every ticket the connected user may see') and the default ordering. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (glpi_list_my_tickets), so an agent can disambiguate without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-not plus the alternative: for the connected user's own tickets, use glpi_list_my_tickets instead. It also states the filtering intent ('Filter by status ... and choose the sort column and direction'), leaving no inference needed.

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