zendesk_incremental_tickets

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns up to 1000 tickets per page and includes an after_cursor for pagination. It doesn't mention any error conditions or limits, but for a read-only incremental export, the behavior is well-described.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool, specifying output and pagination, and guiding usage. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, pagination mechanism, output structure (1000 tickets per page + cursor), and typical use cases. Without an output schema, it adequately explains what the tool returns and how to paginate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the default for start_time (30 days ago), the requirement for it to be at least 1 minute in the past, and that cursor overrides start_time. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: exporting tickets updated since a given time using cursor-based pagination. It uses specific verbs ('export') and resource ('tickets'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like zendesk_search or zendesk_get_ticket by focusing on incremental bulk exports.

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 states it's best for bulk data pulls and syncing local datasets. It provides explicit instructions for pagination: use start_time on first call and after_cursor on subsequent calls. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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