tickets_blueprints_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that hidden blueprints are excluded and lists return fields. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (though implied by parameters), default sorting, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose with a key constraint, second lists return fields. No filler words, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple list tool with optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, filter (hidden excluded), and returned fields. It could mention that results are paginated or default sorting, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (page and per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('Ticket Blueprints'), and the specific scope ('available for ticket creation, hidden ones are excluded'). It also lists the returned fields, distinguishing it from siblings like 'tickets_blueprints_apply' which applies a blueprint.

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 needing to view available blueprints for ticket creation, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., for all blueprints including hidden, a different tool might be needed). No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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