List ticket steps

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that for primary tickets in a bundle, steps from secondary tickets are merged, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other important traits such as pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens on error, which would be valuable for a history endpoint.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the main purpose. It includes a behavioral detail (merged steps) and a sibling reference. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate section for parameters) but is already efficient.

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 the tool has an output schema (which explains return values) and only 2 simple parameters, the description does not need to cover return structure. It explains the bundle merging behavior and the sibling context. It might be slightly incomplete for agents needing to know about pagination or limits, but for a list endpoint with an output schema, it's largely sufficient.

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. However, the description does not explain either parameter (since or ticket_id). The since parameter especially benefits from explanation (e.g., format or semantics). The ticket_id is somewhat self-explanatory but formal guidance is missing. Baseline for 0% coverage would be lower, but with only 2 params and one being clear from the property name, a 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 the tool lists 'editing steps (history) of a ticket' which is a specific verb+resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by mentioning behavior for bundle tickets and explicitly referencing the sibling `get_ticket_step` for single step retrieval, making it easy for an agent to differentiate.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to list the entire step history) and when to use an alternative ('Use get_ticket_step for the text of a single step'). It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention prerequisites, but the guidance on bundle tickets and the sibling reference is helpful.

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