incidents_get_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: response concatenation uses AND, max result set size is >100, offset is zero-based, and required licenses are specified. It also includes an example request. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'Get Incidents' strongly implies non-mutating behavior, and no side effects are mentioned. This is solid coverage.

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 moderately sized but well-structured with bullets and an example. Every sentence adds information: filter capabilities, AND condition, result size, offset semantics, license requirements, and a worked example. While slightly longer than necessary, the complexity of the tool justifies its length. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has nested object parameters and no output schema. The description is complete enough for practical use: it explains filtering, sorting via example, result size limits, and licensing. It lacks details on return value structure, but since no output schema exists, that is not required by the rubric. It covers the main operational aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical semantics beyond the schema: it explains the AND condition, the all-or-filtered behavior, and gives a concrete example request body showing how to structure filters and sort. This helps an agent understand how to combine parameters correctly, which is valuable despite the schema being complete.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of incidents filtered by a list of incident IDs, modification time, or creation time.' It also clarifies scope (all incident types and severities, including correlation-generated incidents), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like incidents_get_incident_extra_data. The verb 'Get' and resource 'incidents' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: it explains the AND condition, maximum result set size, offset behavior, and the ability to retrieve all or filtered results. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it for listing incidents. The example request body further clarifies invocation details.

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