Детали тикета

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return scope — the entire ticket including the conversation — which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior or authorization requirements. For a get operation, the risk is low, but the description itself 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 short sentence with no filler. It conveys the key distinguishing detail, 'включая переписку', without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple get operation with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient: it tells the agent what will be returned. No output schema exists, so the return description adds necessary value. It does not cover error cases or link to sibling tools, but the low complexity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 input schema has full coverage: the single required parameter 'id' is described as 'Идентификатор тикета', which is sufficient. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Обращение в поддержку целиком, включая переписку' clearly identifies the resource as the full support ticket, including the correspondence thread. This distinguishes it from the list sibling wata_support_tickets, which likely returns a summary of tickets. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb statement, so the action is mostly inferred from the tool name and title.

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 provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wata_support_tickets, wata_support_ticket_create, or wata_support_ticket_reply. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or stated conditions. The only usage signal is the 'get' suffix in the tool name.

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