get_ticket

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read operation via 'Get' and flags a crucial behavioral trap: ticket_id must be the internal ID, not the display KEY-NNN. It does not spell out permissions or error behavior, but for a single-resource getter with an output schema this is adequate.

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 compact sections: a one-sentence purpose followed by a focused note on the single parameter. Every line adds information, and the most important constraint—internal ID vs display ID—is called out immediately.

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?

The tool is a one-parameter getter with an output schema present, so no return-format description is needed. The description covers the operation, the payload, and the ID source, making it complete for correct invocation.

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%, making the Args note essential. It defines ticket_id as the internal ID, explicitly excludes the display ID format, and names the lookup tools that produce it. This fully compensates for the bare 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single ticket's full details + activity counts.' It also distinguishes the by-internal-ID lookup from get_project_ticket, so the agent can tell it apart from the sibling ticket tools.

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?

Provides explicit routing: use list_tickets/list_project_tickets first to obtain the internal ID, or use get_project_ticket when the project key + number are available. This tells an agent when this tool is appropriate versus an alternative with no inference required.

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