memory_list_tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the default status filter behavior and the include_closed option, which are behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences convey the purpose and a key usage hint. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a list tool with good annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: default filtering and how to include history. It doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, but these are likely in the output schema. Overall, the description is adequate for this simple tool.

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?

Though the top-level schema coverage is 0%, the nested schema provides descriptions for 'status', 'assigned_to', and 'include_closed'. The description adds meaning to 'include_closed' by explaining it is for history, and clarifies the implicit default for status. This goes beyond the schema's basic filter labels.

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 states 'List tickets' clearly, with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the default scope ('open/in_progress/in_review'), which distinguishes it from other ticket operations like create or claim.

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?

It gives clear context that listing defaults to active statuses and that 'include_closed' is for historical tickets. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search, but the default behavior is well described.

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