list_incidents

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a non-destructive listing operation and that filters are optional, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, filter-combination semantics, or what happens when no filters are supplied.

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, efficient sentence with the primary action and resource front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 straightforward filtered list tool, the description covers the core action and parameters, and an output schema exists so return structure does not need to be explained. But with no annotations, it lacks guidance on default behavior, pagination, or how to choose between this and the several incident-related sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the four parameters and their role as filters, which adds some meaning beyond their names. However, it does not explain matching behavior, code formats for branch_code/terminal_code, or whether filters combine; the schema's enums already cover status and priority values.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('incidents'), and names the four filtering dimensions. It is clear enough to distinguish this tool from single-item tools like get_incident and semantic search like search_similar_incidents, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 implies this is the general-purpose tool for listing incidents, and the optional filters give context about its use. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_incident, search_similar_incidents, or get_critical_incidents instead.

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