get_incident_details

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the required scope and mentions governance by Arbiter constitutional policy and ProofLink cryptographic receipt. This provides useful behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes essential behavioral context in the second sentence.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing key details. However, it could be more complete by specifying expected format for incident_id or handling of errors, and it does not help differentiate from similar sibling tools.

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 for the single parameter 'incident_id' is 100% with a description 'The incident ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Fetch details' and the resource 'specific autonomous remediation incident', listing specific fields such as ProofLink receipt and NIST mappings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_incident_timeline' or 'get_remediation_history'.

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 mentions the required scope 'incident:classify:read' as a prerequisite, providing some usage guidance. However, it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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