get_open_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states what the tool returns and implies a read-only operation by saying 'Returns issues'. However, it does not mention any limitations such as pagination, maximum result count, or authentication requirements. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the return fields are listed in a compact, useful way. Every sentence adds value.

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 description is complete for a simple zero-parameter tool. It specifies the scope (currently active) and the return fields, which gives an agent enough context to understand the output. It does not mention pagination or limits, but given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no gap to compensate for.

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 specific resource ('currently active (open) incidents/issues from New Relic AI') and the action ('Get all'). It also lists the return fields, making it unambiguous what the tool does and distinguishing it from siblings like query tools or entity tools.

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 conveys the intended use: retrieving current open incidents. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the wording 'currently active' communicates the scope, and siblings are clearly different domains (queries, entities, conditions). The usage context is clear enough without explicit exclusion clauses.

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