gorelo_get_ticket

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description owes additional context and delivers none. It says nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid ticketId, permission requirements, or the shape of the returned ticket, all of which matter for a get-by-id call with no output schema.

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 single sentence is free of redundancy and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is no wasted text, yet almost nothing is conveyed.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description should at minimum hint at what is returned or what happens on a not-found ID. Neither is present, so an agent knows only that a ticket comes back.

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 100% for the single ticketId parameter, so the schema already defines it and the baseline is 3. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as whether the ID is a numeric string, internal ID, or external reference.

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?

"Gets a single ticket" states a concrete verb and resource, and the word "single" distinguishes it from the sibling list_tickets. However, it does not distinguish it from the other get_* siblings (get_ticket_approval, get_ticket_comment) or indicate what a ticket record contains, leaving the purpose only minimally specified.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_tickets, update_ticket, or the related get_ticket_* tools. The requirement of a ticketId implies retrieval-by-identifier, but that inference is left entirely to the caller.

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