List incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds ordering (newest first) and the fact that updates and affected components are bundled in, but says nothing about the page size default, total counts, or truncation behavior, so it adds only moderate context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the filter example second. Nothing is wasted, though the example values partially duplicate what the schema's status description already lists.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (incidents with updates and affected components) and the ordering, and the schema carries pagination and filter details. The relationship to get_incident and pagination semantics is the only meaningful gap.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the status filter with an example of open-incident statuses but never mentions excludeStatus, and adds no format or syntax detail the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list incidents on a status page) plus the return shape (updates and affected components) and ordering (newest first). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_incident or list_maintenances, but the resource is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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 second sentence gives a concrete usage cue: pass comma-separated statuses such as 'INVESTIGATING,IDENTIFIED,MONITORING' to get open incidents. That is genuinely helpful, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_incident or how it relates to the paginated listing workflow, so usage is only implied.

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