list_incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing filtering options, default limit (1000), and return type (list of Incident objects). It does not contradict 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?

The description is concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence summary followed by bullet-point-like parameter explanations and a return statement. No unnecessary text; every sentence adds value.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: all params, return type, and default limit. It lacks mention of pagination or ordering, but these are not critical given the annotation hints. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: allowed values for request_scope, statuses, urgencies, and cross-reference for priorities. This adds meaning beyond the simple schema property names.

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 tool lists incidents with optional filtering. It distinguishes from singleton 'get_incident' and other list tools by specifying it returns multiple incidents with various filters. The verb 'list' and resource 'incidents' are explicit.

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?

While the description implies when to use (e.g., retrieve multiple incidents), it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like 'get_incident' for a single incident. It does cross-reference 'list_priorities' for resolving priority IDs, which is helpful.

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