Smart Get Ticket

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

The description discloses crucial runtime behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: auto-pagination up to max_messages, the truncated=true flag for over-cap tickets, and chronological ordering (oldest first). This level of detail helps the agent understand response completeness and memory/processing implications.

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. Each of the four sentences adds distinct value: purpose/format, pagination behavior, truncation flag, and usage guidance. No wasted words or 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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return characteristics (full thread, clean format, pagination, truncation, sort order). It also points to alternative tools for raw data and search. It doesn't spell out the exact fields in the clean format, but the overall behavior is sufficiently covered.

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%, providing definitions for both 'id' and 'max_messages'. The description adds value by elaborating on max_messages' purpose (pagination control), default value, hard cap, and the tradeoff for lowering it. This enriches the semantic understanding beyond the schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve a ticket with its full conversation thread'. It further clarifies the output is 'projected to a clean format optimised for LLM consumption', and distinguishes itself from the raw 'gorgias_get_ticket' alternative, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use gorgias_smart_search to find tickets first' and 'For raw API data, use gorgias_get_ticket instead'. It also explains when to tune max_messages (lower for cheap recall, raise for full audit history), giving clear context for effective use.

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