get_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details and replies, implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether there are side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors. It is factually correct but minimal.

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 sentence of 11 words, with no fluff. It is optimally concise and front-loaded with key information.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves room for improvement. It tells the user what they get (details and replies) but does not mention the return format, possible error states, or pagination behavior. Slightly under-informative for a standalone tool.

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% for the single parameter (ticketId), so the schema already provides its meaning. The description adds no further semantics for the parameter beyond what the schema states. Baseline score of 3 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 'Get details of a specific support ticket including all replies' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (a specific support ticket), and the scope (including all replies). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_my_tickets' (which lists tickets) and 'close_ticket' or 'reply_to_ticket'.

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 implies usage when needing full details of a single ticket, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_my_tickets' (for summaries) or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations.

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