List Ticket Fields

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it returns specific fields, mentions cursor pagination, and notes that option values are provided for dropdown/multiselect fields. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with only four sentences that are all informative. It front-loads the action ('List the ticket field definitions') and each sentence adds distinct value: scope, return details, use case, and pagination info. No superfluous text.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and why it's useful. It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but the annotations cover safety. Given the tool's simplicity, this is complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters (cursor and page_size). The description mentions cursor pagination but adds no further details about parameter usage or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it lists ticket field definitions (both system and custom fields) and details the returned fields (id, type, active/required, option values). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools which list other entities like tickets or articles.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to discover field ids and option tags for create_ticket and update_ticket. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would not misuse it. No alternative tool is needed as it's the only one listing field definitions.

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