get_incident

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 discloses the data scope ('complete record... work notes and comments'), the return scope ('every field plus the full journal history and the age of the incident in hours'), and the read-only nature implied by 'Retrieve.' It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., not-found behavior) or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Roughly 80 words, clearly front-loaded with the purpose statement, then organized into usage guidance, args, and returns/alternative. Every sentence adds value—purpose, when-to-use, parameter format, return scope, and sibling routing—with zero fluff.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it covers selection (when to use), invocation (number format), and outcome (return scope). The only meaningful gap is error behavior—what happens if the incident number doesn't exist—which matters here because the tool is prescribed as a mandatory pre-update/pre-resolve check.

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, and it does by documenting the parameter with a concrete format example: 'incident number such as "INC0010001".' Combined with the 'exact incident number' phrasing in the usage guidance, the sole parameter is meaningfully explained. A full pattern or edge-case guidance (case sensitivity, prefix rules) would earn a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the complete record for one incident, including its work notes and comments.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Use search_incidents if you do not have a number' and by positioning itself as the pre-update/pre-resolve read against update_incident and resolve_incident.

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 states exactly when to use the tool ('once you know the exact incident number, and always before updating or resolving an incident'), gives the rationale ('acting on the current state rather than a stale search result'), and names the explicit alternative condition ('Use search_incidents if you do not have a number'). Nothing is left to inference.

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