Keuzelijsten ophalen

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the payload contains ids and names, without saying whether all six lookup families come back in one call, how they are grouped, or how stable the values are. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads what to do with it. No filler, no redundant restatement of the title.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does name the key fields (ids and names) across all six lookup domains. What is missing is the shape of the response — whether it is one flat list or six keyed sections — which matters for an agent that must parse it.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed to retrieve the full reference set, and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and an explicit, exhaustive enumeration of the resource families it covers: ticket statuses, priorities, ticket types, categories, activities and operators. An agent can immediately tell this is the reference-data lookup tool rather than one of the search_* or get_* siblings that return business records.

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 second sentence gives a concrete call-to-action ('Use these ids when filtering or changing records'), which links this tool to downstream tools like search_tickets, update_ticket and log_time. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly or stating when not to call it, so it falls shy of a 5.

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