getTicket

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. While it mentions what information is returned (description, comments, metadata), it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), error handling for invalid IDs, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially be more comprehensive given the lack of annotations.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (structure, format), error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. For a tool that retrieves potentially complex ticket data with comments and metadata, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, all parameters (id, includeComments, commentLimit) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'including description, comments, and metadata' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific WordPress Trac ticket including description, comments, and metadata.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('WordPress Trac ticket'), and scope of information returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTracInfo' or 'searchTickets' which might also retrieve ticket information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'getTicket' over 'searchTickets' for finding tickets, or how it differs from 'getTracInfo' which might provide broader Trac information. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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