superops_tickets_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'List tickets' and mentions filters; it does not mention pagination/cursor handling, default or maximum result count, result ordering, or whether any side effects occur. This is a safe read-like operation but that is inferred, not disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then lists filter options without padding. Every phrase contributes; no unrelated information is present.

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 read/list operation with a fully documented parameter schema, this is minimally viable, but there are gaps: no mention of pagination despite cursor/max parameters, no guidance on output/return shape (and no output schema exists), and no alternative tool routing. It is enough for basic calls but not fully self-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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters and their allowed filter values. The description's 'status, priority, client, or assignee' phrase merely restates what the schema contains and adds no extra meaning about max, cursor, or unassigned semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('List tickets in SuperOps.ai'), making the core operation clear. It also names filter dimensions, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like superops_tickets_get or create, so a weaker agent could still wonder whether it returns a single ticket or a collection, although 'list' implies collection.

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 filter sentence gives a sense of when the tool is appropriate (when you need multiple tickets by status, priority, client, assignee), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to tickets_get, tickets_create, or the custom query tool. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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