get_project_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose important interpretation behavior (project_id is not the key and number is the NNN), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, any potential side effects, or error conditions. For a simple GET-like tool, the clarification of identifiers adds some value but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the mapping explanation and then parameter details. It includes a concrete example without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main ambiguities: how to interpret the display id and which identifier to use. It does not mention not-found behavior or alternative tools, but these are not critical for a straightforward retrieval. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 provides only parameter names and types with 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the semantics. It does this well: project_id is explicitly 'NOT the project key', and number is 'the per-project ticket number (the NNN in KEY-NNN)'. The example (PLAT-42 -> project_id of "PLAT", number=42) further clarifies the mapping. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 it gets a project ticket by project_id and per-project sequence number, and explicitly explains the KEY-NNN mapping with an example. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_ticket by specifying the two required identifiers (project_id and number), making its scope unambiguous.

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 includes a clear directive to use list_projects to obtain the project_id (not the key), which is essential usage guidance. It implies this tool is for retrieving a specific ticket when you know the number, but it does not explicitly contrast against list_project_tickets or get_ticket. This is still better than minimal guidance.

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