get_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read operation and notably includes a strong warning against fabricating data on failure, advising to report errors instead. While it could mention idempotency or authentication, the error-handling instruction adds valuable safe-use context beyond the default.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first succinctly states purpose and optional data. The second provides a critical safety directive. Every word earns its place, making it easy to read and process.

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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and adds error-handling guidance. It is missing explicit mention of the default value for include (detail) and whether multiple values can be combined, but these are minor gaps. Overall, it is largely self-contained and sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 defines the include enum values clearly. The description summarizes the optional attachments, reinforcing the schema but not adding new meaning. It slightly improves clarity by listing them in prose, but does not explain behavior like default when include is omitted or whether multiple values are allowed (schema implies single-select). Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a support ticket, listing optional inclusions (photos, movement log, checkin/checkout, chat attachments). This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like list_tickets (listing) and list_tickets_log (log entries), providing a specific verb and resource with scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tickets or get_client. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling list is provided externally but the description itself offers no decision-making support.

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