ticket_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool 'returns the sections' and that 'the server has no opinion about the content,' clarifying that it only provides a structure and does not validate content. This adds value beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. It is concise, but the wording is slightly informal and could be tightened (e.g., 'the skeleton to fill in' is a bit vague). Still, it avoids fluff and each sentence earns its place.

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 simple optional parameters, the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes the returned template), and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect. The only minor gap is the lack of parameter explanation, but that is mitigated by their optionality and defaults.

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%, and the description makes no mention of the 'project' and 'tracker' parameters. While both are optional and have defaults, an agent cannot infer whether they filter the template or influence the returned sections. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 purpose: it returns an empty ticket skeleton with the sections and lengths the team uses, to be filled in before drafting. It distinguishes itself from content generation ('write the ticket yourself') and from other workflow tools by specifying it's for the structure, not the content.

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 explicitly says to use it 'before drafting, not after' and instructs the user to write the ticket themselves afterward, establishing a clear workflow position. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand this is an early-stage template retrieval step.

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