Тикеты поддержки

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only lists data fields and does not disclose that the operation returns a paginated list, whether it is read-only, how the 'unread' flag is determined, or any scope/side-effect behavior.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and its key attributes. It is appropriately sized for the tool's low complexity, even though the brevity contributes to semantic gaps elsewhere.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the missing explicit verb, pagination behavior, and scope (whose tickets are returned) are significant gaps. The two parameters are well documented, but the description alone is not enough for an agent to call the tool with full confidence.

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 coverage is 100%: both skipCount and maxResultCount already have explicit descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantic detail, so it contributes no value beyond the input schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 names a specific resource (support tickets) and enumerates key attributes (topic, category, status, unread replies), but it never states a verb such as 'list', 'get', or 'return'. The plural name and pagination parameters imply a list operation, but the purpose remains implicit and is not explicitly distinguished from the singular wata_support_ticket_get sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related ticket tools (get, create, reply, mark read). No conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned; an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling set.

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