get_ticket

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 discloses the read-only nature via 'Retrieve' and indicates some return fields, but it does not address error conditions (e.g., non-existent ticket), authorization requirements, or any side effects. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded, with one sentence for purpose and a brief Args line. No wasted words or extraneous details.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the input and the kind of information returned. It could mention not-found behavior, but that is not critical for a straightforward retrieval.

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 description adds meaning to ticket_id by describing it as a unique numeric ID for the ticket to retrieve. This goes beyond the schema's bare type/title, though the type mismatch (numeric vs string) could cause minor confusion. Overall, it meaningfully enhances the schema.

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 the tool retrieves detailed information on a single ticket, listing specific fields (status, resolution, description). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tickets, create_ticket, and update_ticket, which handle different operations.

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 phrase 'single ticket' provides clear context that this is for retrieving one specific ticket, not multiple. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_tickets for multiple tickets or add any when-not-to-use guidance.

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