read_ticket

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the output is a compact object with certain fields, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or limitations. For a read operation, minimal transparency is provided.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose, though it could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has one parameter and no output schema. The description covers basic return fields but does not specify whether all fields are always present or if additional data like comments are included. It is adequate for a simple read but leaves some 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'issueIdOrKey', which is self-explanatory. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 it reads a ticket and returns a compact object with specific fields (summary, description, status, assignee, etc.). It provides a verb and resource, and hints at a lighter version compared to siblings like 'get_ticket' or 'get_only_ticket_name_and_description', but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'get_ticket' and 'get_only_ticket_name_and_description' exist but the description offers no comparison or selection criteria.

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