scout_tickets

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates the recognised formats (Given/When/Then, checklists, numbered, 'AC1:', headings), declares the no-guess fallback for unrecognisable tickets, and states what is returned (criterion ids). Gaps remain around whether repeated calls replace or accumulate previously loaded tickets and what happens with a path outside the permitted dirs.

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?

Purpose and input sources are front-loaded, and the format-recognition and criterion-id details each carry real decision value. It is a single dense paragraph, though, and the format enumeration could have been compressed without losing 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description has to explain both behavior and result, and it does: input sources, parsing rules, the unrecognisable-ticket outcome, and the criterion-id return shape. Only the persistence/replacement semantics of repeated calls are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the text-vs-path exclusivity and the multi-session concurrency semantics for `session`. The description adds only the paraphrase 'pasted (`text`) or from a file (`path`)' and the multi-ticket note, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (read tickets/acceptance criteria) plus the effect (keep them so the report answers each criterion). It distinguishes itself from scout_criterion by naming it as the follow-up consumer and from the ticket_* siblings by scope ('the person gave this run'). An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Clear operating context: use it on the tickets supplied for this run, with either pasted `text` or a file `path`, and multiple tickets may be passed at once. It routes the next step explicitly ('judge it by with scout_criterion') and draws a boundary ('Touches no browser'). It stops short of naming when to prefer scout_ticket_preview/scout_ticket_file instead, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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