tickets_get_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, and 'in full' suggests the return scope, but it does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling, permissions, or how 'full' relates to the 'fields' restriction parameter.

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?

Five words, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 simple, has an output schema, and the parameter schema is complete, so the minimal description is mostly sufficient. A small gap remains: it does not clarify the interplay between 'in full' and the 'fields' column restriction, nor explicitly route users away from sibling list tools.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with meaningful descriptions: 'ticket_id' includes an example and 'fields' explains column restriction. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the baseline.

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 and resource ('Get one case') and the qualifier 'in full' distinguishes it from list/create/update case tools. It is clear but does not explicitly name sibling tools or define what 'full' encompasses.

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 implied: 'Get one case' suggests use when a single case's full data is needed, contrasted with 'tickets_list_cases' for multiple cases. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named.

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