teamleader_tickets_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists tickets with optional filters, omitting important behaviors such as pagination (page/page_size), default result limits, ordering, or that it is a read-only operation. Without these details, the agent cannot anticipate response size or any constraints.

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, clear sentence that states the core function and key optional filters. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and optional filters, but it lacks mention of pagination behavior, response format, or any constraints. Since the schema includes page and page_size, the absence of any note about how these are used is a gap. The description is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 high (80%), with descriptions for customer_id, customer_type, ticket_status_id, and page_size. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating that filters are available. It does clarify the high-level purpose of customer/status filters, but does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., customer_id requires customer_type) beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('support tickets'), clearly conveying the tool's function. It mentions optional filters for customer or status, which helps distinguish it from ticket-specific tools like teamleader_tickets_info or teamleader_tickets_create. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with sibling list/info tools.

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: this tool lists tickets and optionally filters them, so agents can infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over teamleader_tickets_info (for single tickets) or how to handle pagination versus other list tools. The phrase 'optionally filtered' provides some context but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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