get_ticketsql_grammar

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context by identifying the RT version and the nature of the returned reference. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences with no redundant wording. The first states the purpose, the second provides targeted usage guidance, making it highly efficient.

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 parameterless, read-only lookup tool, the description fully explains what it does and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the nature of the returning reference is self-evident and sufficiently described.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to document parameters; it instead focuses on the returned grammar reference, which is appropriate.

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 it 'Returns the TicketSQL grammar reference' for a specific version, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tickets and get_queue_fields, which perform different operations.

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 second sentence explicitly instructs to 'Consult this before writing any TicketSQL query' and highlights specific difficult areas (Status, date/time, custom fields, link fields), providing strong usage guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, but this tool has no close substitutes.

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