draft_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only — this does NOT send anything or modify the ticket,' and notes the human-review requirement. This covers the key safety and workflow behaviors, though it does not mention potential limitations like model availability or output format.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by safety and workflow notes. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose, safety, and next step. However, it omits explanation of the model parameter and does not mention any preconditions (e.g., ticket must exist), leaving slight gaps that could affect correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It implicitly references ticket_id via 'a ticket' but does not explain the optional 'model' parameter or its default behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameter semantics.

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 function: 'Generate a suggested reply to a ticket via a local LLM (Ollama).' It specifies a verb, resource, and method, and distinguishes itself from siblings like update_ticket_status by framing the reply as a draft that does not send anything.

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 gives clear workflow guidance: 'A human should review the draft before using it; if approved, call update_ticket_status separately to record the outcome.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (to create a draft) and points to the appropriate next step, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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