itsm_list_tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists tickets and can filter, but does not describe the return format, ordering, pagination, or whether it is read-only (though this is implied). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, succinct sentence that immediately states the action and key options. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is simple, and the schema covers parameters well, but there is no output schema, so the description should indicate what the tool returns. It does not. Additionally, it gives no context on how this tool relates to the many similar ITSM tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without enough information to make a fully informed selection.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description and enums. The description adds no new meaning, only restating that filters are optional. It actually omits the 'all' enum value for status, which could be slightly misleading, but the schema fully documents it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List ITSM tickets' with optional filters for status and severity. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like itsm_list_open_incidents, so it loses a point for missing sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative ITSM listing tools. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The sibling list contains similar tools, but no comparison is offered.

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