Api incidents md retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety needs no restating. The description contributes nothing about what the retrieved markdown contains, its format, or how it differs from the CSV/XLSX export siblings, and its 'export mixin' framing actively mischaracterizes the output.

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?

It is short, but every word is off-target: the single sentence conveys internal code structure rather than caller-facing information. Brevity without relevance is under-specification, not conciseness.

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 one-param retrieve with no output schema, the description should state what entity is fetched by id and what markdown is returned. None of that is present, and the 'export mixin' framing leaves the agent with a materially wrong mental model of the call.

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?

There is one required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry that burden. It never mentions the identifier at all, leaving the agent to guess whether id refers to an incident, an export job, or a file.

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 describes an internal implementation artifact ('Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports') rather than the operation. The tool name says incidents markdown retrieve, so the text both misstates the resource and misstates the action, giving an agent no way to distinguish it from the export_csv/export_xlsx or incidents_retrieve siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and what is given points the agent toward CSV/XLSX exports instead of a markdown retrieval. An agent reading this would reasonably pick the wrong sibling tool.

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