list_my_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only mentions 'summary' without elaborating on the listing behavior (e.g., order, pagination, or read-only nature). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and provide a relevant alternative. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and suggests the next logical step (get_ticket). It omits potential details about the scope (only assigned open tickets) but that is largely clear from the name.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate further.

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 'List your assigned open tickets (summary)' which specifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates from get_ticket by directing users to that tool for full details. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 guidance to use get_ticket for full details, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like list_open_tickets. The usage context is implied but not fully clarified, leading to a minimum viable score.

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