scout_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it lists the recognized formats (Given/When/Then, checklists, numbered, "AC1:", "Acceptance criteria" heading), notes multiple tickets may be given, states unrecognized tickets are reported rather than guessed, and discloses "Touches no browser." It omits auth/rate-limit details, but for a local parsing tool that is minor.

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?

It is a dense single paragraph that is front-loaded with the core action (read and retain criteria) before the parsing details. Slightly long, but every clause conveys a distinct behavior rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains what is returned (criterion ids AC1, AC2, …) and the not-recognized case, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the named downstream tool, this is essentially complete for a parsing/ingest 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates that criteria come from `text` or `path` but adds no format or size detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it reads tickets/acceptance criteria from `text` or `path` and stores them for the report. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming scout_criterion as the downstream tool used to judge each returned id, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a schema.

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?

It states the context clearly ("the tickets or acceptance criteria the person gave this run") and routes the follow-up to scout_criterion. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or contrast it against nearby capture tools like scout_playbook/scout_note, leaving that to inference.

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