list_open_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states 'Read-only', which is an important behavioral fact, and enumerates the return fields. However, it does not mention ordering, the meaning of the limit, or how 'open' tickets are defined, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 with every one bringing value: purpose, read-only flag, and returned fields list. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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?

The description covers the purpose, filters, read-only nature, and return fields. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to spell out return details. Minor gaps include the definition of 'open' and ordering behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequately complete.

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. It explains that category, persona, and priority serve as filters, but it does not describe the limit parameter's semantics (only a default is visible in schema) or any allowed value constraints. This is partial compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List open support tickets' and additionally names the optional filters and the fields returned. It can be clearly distinguished from siblings like get_ticket (single ticket) and the analytical tools.

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 implies usage when a caller needs open support tickets with optional filters, but it offers no explicit guidance about when to use a sibling tool instead (e.g., get_ticket for one ticket or sla_breaches for SLA analysis). There are no clear when-not conditions, making the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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