hb_ticket_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares read-only, which is a useful behavioral trait, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for missing tickets, or what 'header fields' omits (e.g. comments, attachments). For a retrieval tool with zero annotations this is thin.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no waste. The example ID and read-only hint are packed efficiently rather than padded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'header fields' includes, what a not-found response looks like, and how it differs from hb_ticket_list. It leaves these gaps unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide a concrete ID format example (T-20260825-196589547), which adds meaning beyond the bare 'ticket_id' string type. Still, only one param is documented this way and no format constraints beyond the example are given.

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 (Show) and resource (one ticket's header fields) with an ID example. It's clear and distinguishable from sibling hb_ticket_list, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling to differentiate.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by ID' and the example format, and the read-only note signals a safe inspection call. But there's no explicit when-to-use vs hb_ticket_list, no prerequisites or error conditions for invalid IDs.

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