list_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists filter value sets but does not state read-only behavior, pagination, return structure, or side effects. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates return format, but the description itself lacks transparency about operational behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by terse parameter value lists. There is no filler, though the structure could be improved by grouping parameters for readability.

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 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential filters but lacks pagination semantics and assignee_id clarification. The output schema likely documents return values, so the incomplete parameter guidance lowers completeness but not drastically for a simple list operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains valid values for state, status, and priority, but omits the required project_id, as well as assignee_id, page, and per_page. This leaves the majority of parameters semantically unexplained.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('tickets for a project'), which distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ticket (single ticket) and list_cards (different entity). It also enumerates accepted filter domains (state, status, priority), reinforcing the tool's scope.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage for listing tickets but does not explicitly distinguish it from other list tools (e.g., list_cards or list_epics) or mention context like required project_id.

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