List Kitchen Tickets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'List all kitchen order tickets' is consistent and adds little new safety context. The description does add that it returns specific fields and operates on the 'live order board,' which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences covering the purpose and return fields. The bilingual text adds a bit of redundancy but is acceptable for the context. It is front-loaded with the core action and has no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simple nature of a list operation, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. The pagination parameters (after, limit, offset) are described in the schema, so the description does not need to elaborate. However, it could mention pagination behavior or result ordering for completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the 5 parameters already having descriptions. The description mentions filters by status or station, paralleling the status and stationId parameters, but does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as listing kitchen order tickets for the live order board, with optional filters by status or station. It specifies the return fields: ticket id, station, status, table ref, and items. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like list_kitchen_stations or get_kitchen_ticket, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as for single ticket retrieval (get_kitchen_ticket) or summary views (kitchen_flow_summary). The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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