list_tickets

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it lists tickets and returns content, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., read-only), pagination, or limits. As a list tool, it is likely safe but not transparent.

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 short, with the main purpose upfront. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' section uses a non-standard parameter name, and the structure could be clearer. Slightly wordy due to the redundant format.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema (unspecified), the description only states 'The ticket content' for returns, which is vague. It doesn't address pagination, limits, or how the list is ordered. Given the existence of siblings, it is minimally complete but not thorough.

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?

The description adds meaning for the parameter by saying 'The status of the ticket', but uses the wrong name 'a' instead of the schema's 'status'. Schema has 0% description coverage, so description partially compensates but with an error.

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?

Clearly states it lists tickets by status, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'add' and 'search_kb'. However, the description uses 'a' instead of 'status' for the parameter name, which could cause minor confusion.

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?

Implied usage: when you need to list tickets filtered by status. No explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for search or other operations). No mention of alternatives among siblings.

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