get_ticketsql_grammar

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly conveys a read-only operation that returns a reference. It doesn't disclose any side effects or unexpected behaviors, but the tool is inherently simple and the description covers its main function. A slight extra detail on return format would elevate it, but it's adequate.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the tool's function and content, and the second providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 it's a simple reference-lookup tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it returns, how it relates to search_tickets, and when to call it. There are no gaps.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description focuses on the purpose rather than parameter details, which is appropriate. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing here reduces that.

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 returns the TicketSQL query language reference, specifying the content (fields, operators, date literals, and examples) and its relationship to the search_tickets query parameter. This isolates it from sibling tools like get_ticket or search_tickets, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use this tool ('Call this when constructing non-trivial searches'), tying it to the search_tickets parameter. While it doesn't discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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