get_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'get details' without explaining return format, error behavior (e.g., if ticket not found), or any access requirements. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation or what happens with missing IDs, leaving a significant 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, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool with one parameter. It fails to explain what details are returned (e.g., ticket status, messages, timestamps) or how errors are handled. While the tool is simple, a more complete description would clarify the response format and edge cases.

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 defines a single required 'id' parameter as a number, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain that 'id' refers to the ticket identifier, though this is somewhat inferable from the phrase 'ticket support'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Obtenir' = get) and resource ('les détails d'un ticket support' = details of a support ticket), making the purpose obvious. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like list_tickets (which lists all tickets) by implying retrieval of a single ticket's details, though it doesn't explicitly mention the ID parameter.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used for fetching a single ticket by ID rather than listing or creating tickets, nor does it reference any prerequisite conditions. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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