list_open_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: resolved and pending tickets are omitted from results. It says nothing about sort order, whether results are truncated by default, or the read-only/auth profile that the access_token parameter hints at.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the inclusion criterion is front-loaded and the exclusion clause immediately follows, which is exactly the order an agent needs.

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 tool is a simple filtered list with an output schema present, full schema coverage on all three parameters, and the one non-obvious behavior (exclusion of resolved/pending) disclosed. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so limit, priority, and access_token are already fully explained including the 1-50 range and enum values. The description adds no filtering semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tickets') plus the scoping predicate ('still open'). An agent can distinguish it from get_ticket or create_ticket by the plural listing and the open-state filter, though siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the caller learns it returns open tickets, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over search_docs or get_ticket, and no mention of prerequisites or pagination strategy. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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