tomticket_get_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key safety characteristic ('Nao altera dados'), clarifying that this is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or required permissions, which would be valuable given no output schema exists.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action ('Consulta o detalhe completo') is front-loaded, and the read-only guarantee is included efficiently. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 ticket-detail fetcher with no output schema, the description adequately conveys that the result includes responses and schedules. The missing piece is explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, but the core operational context is present. The 75% schema coverage covers most parameters.

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 75%, so the schema already documents ticket_id, show_tags, and show_stopwatch. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The show_staggered_tickets parameter remains undocumented, but the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 verb ('Consulta'), a specific resource ('detalhe completo de um chamado'), and scope ('incluindo respostas e horarios'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools like tomticket_list_tickets by emphasizing the full detail of a single ticket.

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 when complete ticket details, including responses and schedules, are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool, such as preferring tomticket_list_tickets for a summary view or tomticket_reply_ticket for a different action.

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