List Open Tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the purpose and gives no details on pagination behavior, response format, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation beyond the implicit listing.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the parenthetical status code adds necessary specificity.

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 operation with one documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it should at least mention that it returns a paginated list of tickets, which is absent. It doesn't explain edge cases or response details.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (page) with 'Page number (default 1)', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('open tickets') with specific status code (status:2). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ticket by implying a list of multiple tickets, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_tickets.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_tickets or list_problems. The description simply states what it does, with no contextual cues or exclusions.

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