explain_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned evidence chain, which matters because there is no output schema. It still omits return format details, pagination, or any cost/latency context, so it clears the lower annotation-backed bar without going beyond it.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, and the key content (the evidence chain) is front-loaded immediately. It is tight and scannable, though the missing verb makes it slightly less directive than it could be.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description partially covers the return content, which is the main gap. It is still incomplete on parameter meaning and on routing relative to siblings, so it is adequate but with clear holes.

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 single parameter incident_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or its expected format. Unlike a zero-parameter tool, this definition needs the description to compensate for the undocumented parameter, and it does not.

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 (an incident) and the exact content returned: impacted services, root cause, actions and why. This gives an agent a concrete sense of what the tool produces. However, it is phrased as a bare noun phrase and never explicitly distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like get_blast_radius or rank_suspects, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With sixteen siblings including several that overlap on incident evidence (rank_suspects, get_blast_radius, recent_changes, find_similar_incidents), the agent gets no help deciding when this tool is the right choice.

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