get_my_open_tickets_tool

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

The description implies a read-only operation (get) with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or read-only. Given the operation type, it is reasonable to assume no side effects, but the lack of explicit statement or annotations leaves some room for interpretation.

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 that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured and to the point.

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?

The description gives sufficient context about what the tool does (retrieve open tickets for a specified user). It does not mention return format, but the output schema is indicated as present, so that is not required. A slight ambiguity remains about whether 'a user' refers to the current user or any user, but the parameter 'owner' clarifies that it is user-specified.

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 input schema provides a clear description for the 'owner' parameter ('Username to search for'), so the tool description does not need to add further meaning. The description of the tool itself does not provide additional context about the parameter beyond what the schema already includes.

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 tool's function: retrieving all open tickets assigned to a user. It specifies the verb (get), resource (tickets), and filters (open, assigned), which distinguishes it from other ticket-related siblings like search_tickets_tool or get_ticket_tool.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name 'my_open_tickets' implies it is for the current user's open tickets, the description says 'assigned to a user' generically, leaving some ambiguity about whether it is meant for the current user or any user. No guidance on when to prefer it over search_tickets_tool is given.

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