tomticket_evaluate_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It warns 'altera producao', which conveys mutability, but it does not explain what changes occur, whether the evaluation can be modified, what permissions are required, or what side effects may follow. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loads the critical production-altering warning. Every word carries weight, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 no-annotation mutation with five parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain the effect of evaluating a ticket, what response to expect, or practical constraints beyond the ticket being finalized. Agents are left to infer behavior from the schema and tool name.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents grade, ticket_id, custom_fields, and problem_solved. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the 'comment' parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific action ('avalia') and a resource ('um chamado ja finalizado'), making it clear the tool evaluates an already finalized ticket. It also warns about altering production, which helps distinguish it from read-only ticket tools. However, 'avalia' is somewhat broad and does not specify the full nature of the evaluation.

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 explicitly restricts usage to tickets that are 'ja finalizado', giving a clear precondition. It does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so the agent must infer that open or in-progress tickets should be handled by other ticket tools.

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