itsm_get_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail: the ticket includes an embedded ProofLink receipt if sealed. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or the absence of a receipt for unsealed tickets. This is adequate but sparse.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key additional detail about ProofLink. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool without an output schema, the description provides enough context: the action, the key conditional behavior (receipt if sealed), and the ID parameter is self-explanatory. It could mention what happens if the ticket is not found, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 already describes the only parameter (ticket_id) with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Retrieve a single ITSM ticket by ID') and adds contextual detail about the embedded ProofLink receipt. It distinguishes from sibling tools like itsm_list_tickets (multiple tickets) and itsm_create_ticket (creation).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a specific ticket ID and need a single ticket. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use itsm_list_tickets for multiple tickets'), though the context is unambiguous.

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