ds_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 behavioral burden. It does disclose an access constraint (anonymous users rejected) and the return payload shape, which is useful. It omits pagination, ordering, and behavior on an empty ticket set, which are gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, with the access restriction last. No filler, though the three sentences could be tightened into two.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return content (IDs, expiration times, JSON) and the auth gate. For a zero-argument list tool this is nearly complete; only pagination/ordering behavior is unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters and both schema and description agree there are none; that is the baseline 4 case. No parameter semantics need explaining.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a list of iRODS tickets') and summarizes the payload (IDs, expiration times, JSON). It distinguishes itself implicitly from ds_get_ticket_info and ds_create_ticket by being the enumeration call, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'list' signals enumeration, and the auth prerequisite ('Anonymous users are not allowed to list tickets') tells the agent when it cannot call this. It never states when to prefer this over ds_get_ticket_info for a single ticket.

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