pospal_list_tickets

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only query ("查") but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, data limits, or whether the tool has any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description should provide more transparency.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the ticket_type mapping is immediately useful. No 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details on required parameter formats (e.g., date/time format for begin_time/end_time), pagination limits, and default behavior. It is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, and only the ticket_type parameter gets explanation in the description. Parameters like sn, begin_time, end_time, page_size, page_index lack any semantic guidance. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but is insufficient.

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 states "分页查销售单据" meaning "pagination query sales tickets", which clearly identifies the verb (query/list) and resource (sales tickets). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pospal_list_products or pospal_list_orders, but does not explicitly contrast them. The ticket_type mapping adds specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as pospal_list_eshop_orders or pospal_list_categories. The description only explains the ticket_type parameter, omitting context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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