Get Tickets

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 thoroughly explains pagination behavior (cursor handling) and return format, which are key traits. It lacks auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool, the disclosed details are substantial.

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 structured with clear sections (overview, pagination, args, returns) and stays focused. The opening sentences are slightly repetitive, but the overall length is efficient and scannable.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the crucial pagination contract and return type. It doesn't enumerate ticket fields, but that isn't necessary for correct invocation. It is complete enough for an agent to use.

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 input schema lists a single cursor parameter with no description. The description's Args section adds essential meaning by explaining it as a pagination cursor from the previous response, fully compensating for the 0% 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 retrieves all tickets from Tidio, using a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling get_ticket_details, which targets a single ticket, making the all-tickets scope evident.

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 phrase 'Use this to get tickets overview' provides a clear context for when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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