list_tickets

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds the 'Ravenna' context but otherwise restates the filter capability already in the schema. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Essential information (action, resource, context, filter capability) is front-loaded.

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?

Lacks information about pagination, default ordering, or which fields are returned. However, the schema provides parameter descriptions, and annotations cover safety. It is adequate but not fully complete for a list operation.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description only repeats 'optional filters' without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'tickets', and the context 'in Ravenna', with optional filters. This distinguishes from sibling tools (create, get, update) which have different actions.

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 for querying multiple tickets with filters, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_ticket for single tickets or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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