gorelo_get_ticket_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read (via 'Get') and mentions the returned data (approvers, computed status), but it does not disclose error handling, authentication prerequisites, or any potential side effects. This adds some context beyond the name but leaves key behavioral aspects unaddressed, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds key output information. There is no redundancy or extraneous detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and key return elements. However, it omits details like error behavior, response structure beyond the two mentioned fields, and any prerequisites. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete, so it earns a 3.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It implies that ticketId and approvalId identify the approval within a ticket but provides no details on their format, scope, or how to obtain them. The description adds only minimal relational context, which is insufficient for complete parameter semantics. Hence a score of 2.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'single approval on a ticket', and it explicitly mentions what is included (approvers and computed status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like gorelo_get_ticket, which operate on different resources. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 single specific approval is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. Since no other approval-related tools exist among siblings, the guidance is implicit rather than explicit. This meets the 'implied usage' level, warranting a 3.

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