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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the create action and required fields, without mentioning side effects, permissions, response/output, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the essential requirement in parentheses. There is no redundant wording, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is not enough context. It omits return behavior, parameter value guidance, and any caveats about creating an issue, so an agent may not call it with full confidence.

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 only 43%, and the description compensates only by restating that project_id and subject are required. It adds no meaning for status_id, tracker_id, priority_id, assigned_to_id, or description beyond their field names, so several parameters remain underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'チケットを新規作成する' (create a new ticket), and explicitly names the two required parameters. This clearly distinguishes creation from sibling read tools (get_issue, list_issues) and update_issue.

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 phrase '新規作成する' gives clear context that this tool is for creating a new ticket, contrasted with the siblings get/list/update. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, but the action is unambiguous enough to route an agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only that a single issue is retrieved, with no mention of read-only behavior, authorization needs, response shape, or what happens if the issue does not exist. For a read operation with zero annotation support, this is a notable gap.

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 short sentence with no filler. It is easy to scan and front-loads the verb and resource, though it could add a brief usage hint without becoming bloated.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single required parameter, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. An agent can infer it returns one issue, but it lacks guidance on when to use it versus list_issues, what the return contains, and any call-specific behavior or failure handling.

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 input schema already documents issue_id ('取得するチケットの ID') and marks it as required. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, but because the schema fully covers it, the baseline score of 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 'チケット 1 件を取得する' states a clear verb (取得する = get/retrieve) and resource (チケット = ticket/issue), and the singular '1 件' distinguishes it from list_issues. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 singular scope implies this is for fetching one specific ticket rather than listing multiple, which weakly distinguishes it from list_issues. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_issue over update_issue or create_issue, and no mention of error conditions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '取得する' signals a read-only retrieval operation and the filterable behavior is disclosed, but there is no mention of pagination behavior, default limits, or return format. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded Japanese sentence that states the operation and enumerates all filter parameters. There is no waste, and the core purpose appears immediately.

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 tool has five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the purpose and filterability. It omits context such as the return shape, behavior when no filters are supplied, and how it relates to get_issue. This is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 every parameter, including limit's maximum of 100 and the special values for status_id and assigned_to_id. The description merely lists the parameter names without adding meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 verb and resource: 'チケット一覧を取得する' (retrieve a list of tickets), so an agent knows it fetches multiple issues. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_issue, update_issue, or create_issue, but the list-vs-single/mutation contrast is inferable from the naming and wording.

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 when to use this tool: when a list of tickets is needed, with optional filters. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer get_issue for a single ticket, so the usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool updates a ticket and lists mutable fields. It does not clarify whether this is a partial update, whether existing values are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur.

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 compact sentence with the main operation front-loaded. The required/optional breakdown is useful and presented efficiently, though the parenthetical style is slightly dense.

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 mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It lacks update semantics, field value details, and any indication of result or error behavior, leaving an agent with significant gaps when calling the 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 only 20%, so the description should compensate, but it only restates which parameters are required or optional. It adds no meaning for fields like status_id or assigned_to_id, such as acceptable formats, allowed values, or relationships.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'チケットを更新する' (update ticket), making the core operation clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_issue and create_issue, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 only notes that issue_id is required and the other fields are optional, which is parameter guidance rather than usage context. It does not explain when to choose this tool over create_issue, get_issue, or list_issues, nor any exclusions.

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