get_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the sole responsibility for transparency. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state limitations like idempotency, required permissions, or any side effects. The mention of 'full message thread' hints at behavior but is insufficient for full transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the action and key detail ('full message thread'), and includes usage guidance efficiently. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 read tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (full thread), when to use it (after list_tickets), and why (read conversation or check reply). No significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'ticket_id' is described in the input schema). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema's 'Ticket ID from list_tickets.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a single support ticket with its full message thread, using specific verbs ('Get') and resource ('support ticket'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_tickets (which returns a list) by specifying this is for a single ticket.

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 explicitly advises 'Use after list_tickets' and provides two concrete use cases: 'to read the conversation or check the latest staff reply.' This gives clear context, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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