rx_tickets

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

Annotations cover the read-only profile, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: only active cards are returned by default, and the exact result string layout (code (id N) название · исполнители · срок). Since no output schema exists, this output-format disclosure carries real weight; it stops short of noting nothing about pagination or ordering.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are dense with routing and format information rather than filler. Slightly overloaded with output-format detail mid-paragraph, but every clause delivers distinct value.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return format, default filtering, and sibling routing, which is close to what an agent needs. Minor gaps around result ordering and pagination remain, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the query format, status values, board_id source (rx_boards), and the limit default/maximum. The description largely repeats this; its only added meaning is tying the numeric 'id N' to rx_ticket and rx_update_ticket, which justifies the baseline 3 rather than lower.

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?

States a specific verb (поиск) and resource (карточки на agile-досках), plus the searchable key formats (название or code like ABC-12). It explicitly distinguishes itself from rx_ticket (full card) and rx_board (whole board), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition (when the board is unknown or a specific card is needed) and names the alternatives with their selection criteria: rx_ticket for the full card, rx_board for the whole board. Nothing is left to inference.

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