twdesk-get_ticket

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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, fully covering the read-only nature. The description adds no extra behavioral traits beyond confirming it retrieves data, which meets the baseline for 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?

Two sentences: one for purpose, one for use cases. No redundant words, front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value.

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 (one param, no output schema), the description covers purpose and use cases. It could optionally hint at the output structure, but the lack is minor for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 100% descriptive coverage for the single parameter (id is described as 'The ID of the ticket to retrieve'). The description offers no additional param-level meaning, placing it at the baseline.

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 action ('Retrieve detailed information') and the resource ('specific ticket in Teamwork Desk by its ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by specifying 'ticket' as the target.

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 provides clear use cases ('auditing, troubleshooting, integration') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like search_tickets or update_ticket. The context is adequate but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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