listIncidentAlerts

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers zero behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how pagination works, rate limits, or what happens when filters are applied. For a tool with 21 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with 'List incident alerts', the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The parameter listing with repeated 'No description' adds bulk without value. The response example is minimal and uninformative.

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 complex tool with 21 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'incident alerts' are, how filtering works, what the include parameter does, or how pagination behaves. The output schema exists but the example is trivial ('key': 'value'), providing no meaningful context.

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%, meaning none of the 21 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description section merely lists parameter names with 'No description' for each, adding zero semantic value. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'List incident alerts' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listAlerts' or 'listIncidents'. It doesn't specify whether this lists alerts for a specific incident or all incident alerts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listAlerts' or 'listIncidents'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the parameter structure alone.

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