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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first) but not the default status behavior (does it include resolved incidents?), pagination/limits, result cap, or permissions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with zero filler. Brevity works in its favor structurally, though it leaves little room for the behavioral detail other dimensions want.

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 tool that is likely the entry point for incident triage, the definition omits default filtering behavior, result volume, and what an incident record contains. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do considerably more of the work.

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 50%: project_id is documented in the schema, but the status parameter is absent from both the schema description and the tool description. The enum values (open/resolved) are self-explanatory, but the description adds no guidance on when or how to use the filter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List incidents"), plus scope ("for this project") and ordering ("newest first"). It is distinguishable from get_incident by the plural/listing framing, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Use to answer what's broken now or recently" gives a real use case, but no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer get_incident for detail or query_logs for raw evidence). It also never says when to filter by open vs resolved.

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