ticket_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the types of stats and the date constraint, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or whether it has any side effects. The behavioral traits are mostly inferred as safe retrieval.

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: the first breaks down what is retrieved, and the second gives a critical constraint. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the purpose and a key constraint but lacks details on return format, pagination, or potential errors. Some ambiguity remains for the agent.

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 all parameters described. The description adds value by emphasizing the 90-day maximum date range and listing the action types, which helps the agent understand the purpose beyond the schema definitions.

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 it retrieves Axur ticket statistics and enumerates several categories (counts by status, incidents by threat type, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings 'ticket_details' and 'tickets' by focusing on aggregated metrics rather than individual tickets.

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 explicitly mentions the 90-day date range constraint, which is a critical usage guideline. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, though the tool name and content imply it's for statistics.

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