get_alert_from_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details such as the requirement that both IDs must be 'known, non-empty PagerDuty IDs', which is not captured by annotations. This provides additional context beyond the structured data.

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 concise: a one-line purpose, a note on ID requirements, usage guidance with a sibling reference, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded. No redundancy or waste.

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 simple retrieval tool with two required string parameters, no nested objects, and an existing output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, ID format, usage alternatives, and return value ('Alert details'). The output schema handles detailed return structure, so no further explanation needed.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It includes an 'Args' section explaining incident_id and alert_id as 'The ID of the incident' and 'The ID of the alert', plus the note that IDs must be non-empty PagerDuty IDs. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare property names, though deeper format details could improve it.

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 'Get a specific alert from an incident' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_alerts_from_incident' by noting that this tool retrieves a single alert given both IDs, while the list tool is for discovery.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (when both IDs are known) and when not to (if alert ID is unknown, use list_alerts_from_incident). It warns against using empty or placeholder alert_id, providing clear usage context.

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