list_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses AND-composition semantics, optionality, default limit, the meaning of include_affected, and full-text search behavior. It also communicates the maximum limit range, giving the agent a clear model of what happens on execution.

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-loads the core purpose. The Args block is compact but information-dense, and every line earns its place given the 10-parameter surface. There is no fluff or repetition beyond the brief restatement that filters are optional, which is acceptable.

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 description is complete for a tool with 10 optional parameters and no annotations. It covers composition, defaults, per-parameter semantics, and the one conditional behavior (include_affected). Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value detail is not a gap. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by documenting every parameter in the Args section. It explains what each filter does, which statuses/priorities/types are accepted, and the special behavior of include_affected. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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's action: 'List tickets across the tenant with optional filters.' This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_ticket and list_project_tickets by specifying the tenant-wide scope. The purpose is immediately identifiable without needing to inspect the schema.

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 gives solid usage context: filters compose with AND, all are optional, and behavior with no filters is described explicitly. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the tenant-wide framing and filter flexibility provide clear enough guidance for most agents.

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