get_critical_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core filtering behavior (unresolved, critical, optional branch scope) and the verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or behavior when branch_code is omitted, but these are minor for a simple list tool and covered by the output schema.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the qualifier. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose and the branch filter; the schema documents the parameter; the output schema documents return values. For a list operation, this is sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'optionally for one branch' tells the agent that branch_code is a filter that narrows to a single branch and that omitting it returns all branches (matching the schema default null). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema type, though it does not detail accepted value formats.

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 states a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('unresolved critical incidents') with an optional branch filter. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_incidents (general list) and get_incident (single item).

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?

Usage is implied: the description indicates it is for unresolved critical incidents and optionally a specific branch, but it never explicitly names list_incidents as the alternative for other incident types or states when not to use this tool. With a sibling named list_incidents, explicit routing would improve clarity.

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