cigchat_team_ticket_lists

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 reveals the HTTP method (GET) which implies a read-only operation, and states the required scope. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or any implications of using the token. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but leaves some gaps.

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 exactly two sentences: one for the action and resource, one for the authentication requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The endpoint is included as a useful hint.

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 operation with 100% parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the resource, the auth requirement, and the HTTP method. It could mention the relationship to sibling list tools, but the name and endpoint make the purpose clear.

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?

The input schema fully covers all three parameters (name, page, limit) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides the necessary semantics.

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 'Get list of ticket lists' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like cigchat_team_ticket_lists_items (which retrieves items within a list) and mutation tools (create/delete/update).

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 implies usage by naming the resource and providing the endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over related tools like cigchat_team_ticket_lists_items or fields. It does mention the required scope ('Manage Team'), which provides some context, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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