list_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no pagination, ordering, filtering, or scope boundaries are stated. The phrase "clean side" gestures at a scoping concept but never defines it, so it adds ambiguity rather than 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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so length is not the problem. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — the one clause present is the opaque "clean side" phrase, which does not front-load actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a listing tool in a suite with list_claims, list_rules, and answer_ticket siblings, the agent needs to know what set is returned, how it is ordered, and how it relates to answering — none of which is present, and "clean side" is never defined.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the schema is left unexplained by the description.

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?

"List questions" restates the name (tickets ≈ questions) without distinguishing it from siblings like list_claims or list_rules, and the qualifier "from the clean side" is unexplained jargon rather than a scope definition. An agent cannot tell what a "clean side" is or whether it wants these results.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the apparently related answer_ticket sibling, and no stated preconditions. The only implied usage is that listed items can presumably be answered, which the agent must infer from the sibling list rather than the description.

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