rx_ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Только чтение' while pointing to the write tools. It adds real context beyond annotations by enumerating the returned content (comments with authors and times, attachments, etc.), though it says nothing about size limits, pagination, or error behavior for an invalid id.

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?

One dense paragraph that is well front-loaded: what the tool returns, then the required input, then the alternatives. Every clause carries information, though the id rule is restated in both the description and the schema, which slightly inflates the length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value – and it does so precisely by listing every field the card exposes. Combined with the input rule and the mutation alternatives, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter guidance (numeric id from parentheses, ABC-12 rejected, use rx_tickets for codes) nearly duplicates the schema's own id description verbatim, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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?

It states a concrete verb+resource (retrieve one full agile-board card) and enumerates exactly what the card contains: status, column, assignees, deadlines, effort, tags, attachments, description and comments. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings, noting rx_tickets for code lookup, rx_update_ticket for changes, and rx_comment_ticket for comments.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition (a numeric card Id taken from the parenthesized id in rx_tickets or rx_board) and an explicit when-not (an ABC-12 code does not work here, use rx_tickets). It also routes mutations to the correct sibling tools, leaving nothing to inference.

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