get_my_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, how results are returned (format, pagination), error conditions, or rate limits. The description is functional but lacks operational 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The purpose is stated clearly in the first sentence, followed by parameter details in a structured format. There's no wasted text, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as a separate 'Args' section.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, and typical usage patterns. The parameter documentation is strong, but operational context is lacking.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. While schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains: 'state: Filter by stage name (optional)', 'priority: Filter by priority (0=Low, 1=Medium, 2=High, 3=Urgent)', and 'limit: Max records (default 20)'. This adds crucial meaning about what each parameter does, including the priority encoding and default values.

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's purpose: 'Get helpdesk tickets assigned to the current user.' It specifies the resource (helpdesk tickets) and scope (assigned to current user). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_my_tasks' or 'get_my_quotations' which follow similar patterns for different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_ticket' (if it existed) or 'search_read' which might retrieve tickets with different filtering capabilities. There's no context about prerequisites, authentication needs, or typical use cases.

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