get_ticket_detail

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

Description carries the transparency burden since no annotations are provided. It reveals behavior such as stripping TK prefix from ticket IDs, default/max for take, and the inclusion of activities. It doesn't discuss error cases or side effects, but 'get' implies a read-only operation.

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?

Description is compact, front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by a brief rationale and a clear args list. No wasted sentences.

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?

Given output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, use case, and parameter nuances. The only gap is lack of explicit error handling or alternative disambiguation, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 provides only names/defaults with no descriptions; description fully compensates by explaining name expects a numeric ID and handles prefixes, and take has a max of 100. Per rubric, low schema coverage requires compensation, which is met.

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?

Description states 'Get a ticket with all its activities and their content in one call,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly differentiates from sibling get_ticket by emphasizing bundled activities and being the recommended tool for analyzing a specific 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?

Explicitly states 'This is the recommended tool for analyzing a specific ticket' and justifies it by avoiding multiple round-trips. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like get_ticket if only basic ticket info is needed.

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