Api incidents status retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about behavior and instead frames the endpoint as an export mixin, which misleads about what the call actually returns; only the annotations keep this from being a contradiction.

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 a single short sentence, but the content is boilerplate lifted from a shared export mixin rather than anything about this endpoint. Brevity without relevant content does not earn credit.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the call returns (presumably the enumeration of incident statuses). Instead it describes an unrelated export concern, leaving the agent with no accurate model of the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema (empty object, additionalProperties false) is fully self-describing, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The 'CSV/XLSX' phrasing hints at an output format that this endpoint has no parameters to select, but with no params to document the baseline of 4 stands.

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 says 'Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports', which describes an export capability, not the incidents status retrieval implied by the tool name and title. An agent reading this would expect a CSV/XLSX export endpoint and instead get a status/enumeration lookup. This is misleading rather than merely vague.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling status/export endpoints (e.g. ciso_assistant_api_incidents_export_csv_retrieve, _export_xlsx_retrieve, _severity_retrieve), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The one sentence present points toward an entirely different tool's use case.

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