get_ticket_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context by mentioning 'full body (dropdown options, regex, etc)', indicating the depth of data returned. There is no contradiction and no missing behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns ('full body') and differentiates from a key sibling. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description could be slightly more detailed about the return format, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described ('Ticket field ID' and 'Override the sticky instance for this call'). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch one ticket field by ID with full body (dropdown options, regex, etc).' It specifies the verb 'fetch', the resource 'ticket field', and the scope 'by ID', along with the content of the response. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'find_field_usage' by mentioning its use for impact analysis before deletion.

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?

Explicitly states: 'For impact analysis before deletion, prefer `find_field_usage`.' This gives clear guidance on when not to use this tool and recommends an alternative, fulfilling the when-to-use aspect perfectly.

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