review_open_tickets

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

Annotations already establish read-only/open-world safety, so the description adds useful behavior by disclosing the sort order and compact one-line output. However, 'every open ticket' is not reconciled with the limit parameter default of 50, and no pagination behavior is described.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded, and both following sentences add behavioral or routing value.

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 covers purpose, alternative routing, and annotation-protected safety, and an output schema exists. It is not complete for parameter usage, especially limit and filters, and the 'every' vs. default-limit inconsistency leaves a real gap.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the four optional parameters (label, limit, project, tracker) or their filtering semantics. The agent must infer meaning entirely from parameter 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?

States a concrete action ('Review every open ticket') and a distinctive output ordering ('least-aligned first'), which is enough to separate it from sibling review_ticket. The phrase 'One line per ticket' further specifies the granularity.

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 planning context: it is 'the answer to what needs tidying before we can estimate any of this.' It names the alternative tool, review_ticket, for when detail is needed after the review.

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