obtener_ticket

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add operational detail. It adds none: nothing about whether the ticket must belong to the caller's projects, nothing about not-found or permission-error behavior, and nothing about what the 'detalle' payload contains.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is tight, though the space it saves is partly reclaimed as a completeness gap elsewhere.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally viable but thin: an agent still cannot tell whether access is scoped to the caller's own tickets (unlike the mis_* siblings) or what 'detalle' includes.

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% and the schema already documents 'code' with the same PROJ-123 example the description gives. The description therefore repeats the schema rather than adding format, validation, or resolution semantics, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (devuelve) plus resource (el detalle de un ticket de BlueSurf) and the lookup key (por su código). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling buscar_mis_tickets, so the boundary between 'fetch by exact code' and 'search' is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus buscar_mis_tickets, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if the code is unknown. The 'por su código' phrasing hints at exact-code lookup, but that is inference, not guidance.

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