list_tickets_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool returns 'movement/change history with timestamps and users', but omits details about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no logs exist. The failure-handling warning is about agent behavior, not the tool's own traits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a critical warning. Information is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence serves a clear function. No wasted words.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details like pagination behavior, ordering of results, and filtering capabilities. The warning about error handling adds useful context, but the overall completeness is merely sufficient.

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% for both parameters (page and per_page), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score 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 'List ticket activity logs across all tickets' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling log tools by focusing on tickets, though it does not explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_tickets'.

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 includes a warning about not fabricating data on failure, which is a valuable usage guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_tickets' or 'get_ticket'), nor does it provide context for when not to use it.

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