api_get_v2_tickets_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method and path but does not disclose response format, potential errors, authentication needs, or any side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes minimal extra behavioral context.

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 line: 'GET /api/v2/tickets/:id/ — Отдельное обращение'. It contains no redundant words, every element serves a purpose, and it is immediately scannable. This is a model of brevity.

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 is incomplete for reliable agent use. It does not explain how the ticket ID is supplied, what the response contains, or when to use this tool versus the list or POST variants. The absence of an output schema makes the missing return-value information particularly problematic. While annotations cover safety, the tool's core semantics are underspecified.

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 documents only 'dry_run' with a complete description, giving 100% coverage for that parameter. The description adds the endpoint pattern with an ':id' placeholder, which is not present in the schema and gives a clue that a ticket ID is needed. However, it does not explain how to provide the ID, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the operation as a GET request to /api/v2/tickets/:id/ and labels it as 'Отдельное обращение' (single ticket). The tool name and path make it distinct from the list endpoint (api_get_v2_tickets) and the POST variant (api_post_v2_tickets_id), so the purpose is specific and well-differentiated.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where the list or POST endpoints would be more appropriate. The intended usage is only implied by the endpoint path and tool name.

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