Listar tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that tickets are listed with filters, but does not reveal pagination, sorting, default limits, whether the query text searches title/description, or how multiple filters combine. This leaves an agent guessing about the operational behavior of the tool.

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 filler. It front-loads the main action and filter dimensions. However, it is almost too sparse, bordering on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, but given the low word count it earns a strong score for structure.

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 5 optional parameters with enums, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only gives a vague overview of filtering capabilities, missing critical context such as return format, pagination behavior, and any constraints on combining filters. Sibling tools are numerous, and the description does not help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It is far from complete given the complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filters by project, status, type, and text, which loosely maps to parameters like project_id/project_key, status, type, and query. However, it does not explain the meaning or format of each parameter, does not differentiate project_id from project_key, and does not clarify how the query parameter works. The high-level list is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool lists tickets, with explicit mention of filter dimensions (project, status, type, text). The verb 'lista' and resource 'tickets' are specific, and the mention of filters distinguishes it from sibling tools like work_list_projects (which lists projects) and work_get (which retrieves a single ticket).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings like work_board or work_get. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'lista tickets com filtro', which is not enough to differentiate selection conditions.

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