get_ticket_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose, such as whether it is read-only, pagination, error handling, or performance implications. The description is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it is in Portuguese while the tool name is in English, which may slightly hinder immediate clarity, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return format, possible file types, or any additional context needed for effective use. It meets minimal requirements but lacks completeness.

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 100%, with ticket_number described. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely reiterates the parameter. However, since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is added.

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: retrieving files attached to a specific ticket in TiFlux. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('buscar arquivos anexados a um ticket') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_ticket or get_ticket which serve different functions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or conditions where it should not be used. The description only states the basic action.

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