glpi_criar_chamado

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

Discloses dry_run behavior that returns payload without persisting, and specifies value ranges for type and urgency. However, no annotations exist, and the description omits side effects (e.g., required permissions, success/failure responses, or error conditions).

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value (action + parameter hints + dry_run note). However, it could be slightly more structured or include brief mentions of other parameters.

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?

Despite low schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides minimal context (type/urgency ranges, dry_run mode). It lacks details on required parameters (name, content), return value, error handling, or integration with GLPI entities.

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?

Description clarifies 'type' and 'urgency' parameters (their meaning and ranges), but with 0% schema coverage, it fails to explain other parameters like name, content, itilcategories_id, entities_id, and requester_id. This leaves many parameters ambiguous.

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?

Description clearly states 'Abre um novo chamado' (opens a new ticket) and differentiates from siblings like atualizar (update) or excluir (delete). It also specifies valid values for type and urgency, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 for creating new tickets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., glpi_atualizar_chamado for updates). It mentions dry_run mode but lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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