get_ticket

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond that, such as the exact contents of the response or any permission requirements. It is not contradictory, but it also doesn't expand on the annotation.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately front-loads the verb and resource. There is no unnecessary wording 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 straightforward getter with a well-defined schema and readOnly annotation, the description adequately conveys the core purpose. It does not specify return format or optional parameter usage, but the schema fills in those gaps. The overall context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (id, fields, subfields), so the schema covers the meaning. The description only mentions the ID, adding no extra semantics for the optional fields. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific ticket by its ID'), using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ticket_history or get_ticket_attachments, but the scope is evident from the description.

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 usage context is implied—when you have a ticket ID and need full details—but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_tickets or get_ticket_history. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are mentioned.

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