incidents_get_incident_extra_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a rate limit of 10 API requests per minute, required license tiers, the POST endpoint, and a PCAP-related response behavior. These operational details go beyond the schema and help the agent anticipate constraints, though the full response format is not described.

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 well-structured and succinct: a one-sentence summary, a note on PCAP, rate limit, license, endpoint, and a JSON example. No sentence is wasted; the structure front-loads the core purpose and supports it with necessary operational details.

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?

The request side is well covered, but with no output schema and no annotations, the response side is under-specified. It mentions 'extra data fields including alerts and key artifacts' and the PCAP condition, but does not describe the actual response structure, key artifact types, pagination, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent consuming the output.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example request body showing the nested 'request_data' structure with 'incident_id' and 'alerts_limit', which clarifies how to invoke the tool beyond schema field descriptions alone.

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 specifies 'Get extra data fields of a specific incident including alerts and key artifacts,' clearly stating the resource (incident extra data), the scope (specific incident), and the contents (alerts, key artifacts). This differentiates it from siblings like incidents_get_incidents (basic incident data) and alerts_get_alerts (alert retrieval).

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 implies use when you need extra incident data and explicitly directs use of the 'Retrieve PCAP Packet' API for PCAP data, providing an alternative. It also notes the rate limit and required licenses, which help an agent decide when invocation is appropriate.

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