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 a read-only operation by nature ('Get') and lists returned fields, but does not mention edge cases such as errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. This is minimal for a read tool, but lacks explicit behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and a summary of contents. It is concise, well-structured, and contains no wasted 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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return value fields. It uses 'including' to signal the list may not be exhaustive, but for a focused tool it provides adequate context without needing more.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'ticket_id' with a clear description ('The RT ticket ID number'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete ticket information') with a clear parameter ('by ticket ID'). It lists key attributes (subject, status, queue, owner, dates, priority, custom fields), which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_tickets or get_ticket_correspondence.

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 when a specific ticket ID is known and full details are needed, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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