Consulter un ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the ticket with its resolution thread, which is a read operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Since it is a read-only tool, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details (retrieves ticket, by number, with resolution thread). No extraneous 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is sufficient for an agent to understand its usage. Could be improved by explicitly stating it returns the full ticket object, but not necessary.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for ticket_id ('Numéro du ticket.'). The tool description adds value by explaining that the ticket is retrieved by number and includes the resolution thread, but it does not add syntactic or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (récupère) and the resource (un ticket GestSup) with its identifier (par son numéro) and includes the additional context of returning the resolution thread (commentaires, changements d'état). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, or close 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 implies usage for retrieving a ticket by number, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gestsup_search_tickets or gestsup_find_tickets_by_user. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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