List Ticket Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: raw message format, deprecation status, and lack of pagination support, which helps the agent understand expected behavior and limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and action, followed by two precise sentences of guidance. No word is wasted; deprecation and alternatives are efficiently conveyed.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose, deprecation, and alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state what the raw response contains or note pagination behavior of the current endpoint, though the deprecation note implies limitations. Still, completeness is strong for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with ticket_id fully described as 'The unique ID of the ticket whose messages to list.' The description only references ticket_id in the endpoint URL without adding extra parameter semantics, matching 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 'List raw messages for a ticket' with the HTTP endpoint, making the action and resource explicit. It distinguishes itself from gorgias_smart_get_ticket and gorgias_list_messages by noting the alternative use cases, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs when to use alternatives: 'use gorgias_smart_get_ticket instead' for a clean projected view, and 'prefer gorgias_list_messages with ticket_id filter for pagination support.' It also flags the endpoint as deprecated, providing clear decision guidance.

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