get_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result includes a branch, an optional terminal, and ordered history, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or that this is a read-only operation, relying on the verb 'Get' to imply it.

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 is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the target resource, and the key included components efficiently.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the incident, notes the included related data, and lets the schema define the exact return shape. Minor gaps around alternative selection and error behavior remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining incident_id beyond the resource name. The single parameter is self-descriptive from its name and integer type, so this is not a critical gap, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('an incident'), and specifies what is included: 'its branch, optional terminal, and ordered history.' This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 singular 'an incident' and the required incident_id imply this is for retrieving a specific incident, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_critical_incidents, search_similar_incidents, or list_incidents. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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