panelica_metrics_post_v1_metrics_ws_ticket

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

The description explicitly states 'Mutating: changes server state,' which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) to clarify the behavioral effect. It also discloses that the ticket is 'short-lived single-use,' matching the idempotentHint: false. This adds valuable detail beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is compact and efficient. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists essential metadata (HTTP method, category, scopes, mutation status) in a structured format. Every line provides useful information without redundancy.

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 ticket-minting tool, the description covers the purpose, auth requirement, mutation flag, and ticket characteristics. It does not describe the response payload (e.g., the ticket string), but no output schema is provided, so this may not be critical. It also omits instructions on how to use the ticket with GET /v1/metrics/ws, but the purpose is implied. Overall, it is fairly complete but could mention the response format.

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?

The input schema has one 'body' parameter described only as 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs.' The description does not explain what this body is for, whether it is needed, or its contents. Although schema description coverage is 100% in the sense that the field has a description, that description is non-informative. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a short-lived single-use ticket for GET /v1/metrics/ws.' It identifies the exact resource and action, and the annotation title 'Mint a WebSocket streaming ticket' reinforces it. It also distinguishes this from the terminal ticket tool by specifying the metrics WebSocket endpoint.

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 description explains why this tool is needed: 'Browsers cannot send HMAC headers on a WebSocket handshake, so streaming auth is ticket-based.' This implies the use case for streaming metrics via WebSocket. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., native metrics) or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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