list_tickets

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose output format ('one per line'), ordering ('newest work last'), and available filters. However, it does not clarify whether filters can be combined or whether status accepts specific enumerated values.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause earns its place. It states behavior, filters, and intended use without any filler or repetition.

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 description covers ordering, output format, filter fields, and the intended pre-call use case. An output schema is present, so return-value structure is handled elsewhere. The main gaps are status value enumeration and explicit statement that filters may be combined, but overall the description is adequate for a simple optional-parameter list tool.

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%, so the description is essential. It provides acceptable values for ticket_type (epic, adr, story, task, spike) and defines parent_id semantics ('show only children of that ticket'). Status is only named without allowed values, and the phrase 'or' leaves filter combination ambiguous, but the core meaning of each parameter is conveyed.

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 and resource ('List tickets') and adds concrete output formatting ('one per line, newest work last'). It also states the intended role ('Use this to find an ID before calling another tool'), which distinguishes it from singular retrieval or mutation tools like get_ticket, update_ticket, or delete_ticket.

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 gives a clear usage directive: 'Use this to find an ID before calling another tool.' It also explains the filter options, providing enough context for selecting this tool over alternatives, though it does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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