list_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only provides status code meanings (0=Nouveau, 1=En cours, 3=Suspendu, 5=Fermé), which are parameter value semantics rather than tool behavior. It does not mention pagination, default limits, sorting, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise sentence plus a status mapping. Every element earns its place; the status code list adds practical value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and five optional parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities. It omits return value behavior, pagination handling, filter syntax, and the meaning of most parameters. The minimal text leaves significant 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 coverage is 0% with five parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for 'status' by mapping codes to labels, which is helpful. However, it leaves 'page', 'limit', 'sqlfilters', and 'thirdparty_id' completely unexplained, so it only partially addresses the gap.

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 'Lister les tickets support' (List support tickets), which clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (support tickets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticket, create_ticket, and close_ticket. However, it lacks any scope or filtering nuance that would differentiate it from other list tools, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether to use get_ticket for single-ticket details or how to combine filters. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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