itsm_get_mttr_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'Get' hints at this), nor does it describe the output structure, permissions, side effects, or any edge cases. The only added context is the data source 'resolved ITSM tickets', which is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and contains zero wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining what the returned statistics look like. It does not, and also fails to address edge cases like insufficient ticket count. While the tool is simple, the lack of return-value detail makes it incomplete for an agent without prior knowledge.

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?

The schema fully covers the single parameter 'last_n' with a clear description ('Analyze last N resolved tickets (default 10)'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get', a clear resource 'MTTR statistics', and a source qualifier 'resolved ITSM tickets'. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like itsm_list_tickets or itsm_get_incident_timeline, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool should be used when MTTR statistics from resolved tickets are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., itsm_get_remediation_history) or mention any exclusions. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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