health_incidents

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

The description reveals that this is a read-only query operation and exposes pagination/filtering variables (after, first, incidentFilter, incidentOrder). However, it does not explain the meaning of the returned data, potential limitations, or any behavioral details like rate limits or required auth. Since annotations are absent, the description carries some burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example variables add useful context but are truncated, which slightly detracts from clarity. Overall, it's concise and every part serves a purpose.

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?

This is a query tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description provides a list of variables and a partial example, but it omits critical context such as what the returned data looks like, how to use pagination effectively, and the difference between this and the sibling 'incidents' tool. Given the availability of many incident-related tools, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke it.

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?

The schema only provides type labels (e.g., 'GraphQL: String'), so semantic meaning is lacking. The description compensates by listing variable names and providing an example that illustrates the structure of incidentFilter, including acknowledged, assignees, closed, created, and escalated. However, it doesn't clarify the meaning of 'after', 'first', or 'incidentOrder' beyond the example, so full semantic coverage is not achieved.

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 identifies this as a query for 'healthIncidents' and lists the supported variables. It uses the verb 'query' and names the resource specifically. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'incidents' tool, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'incidents' or other incident-related tools. The description only mentions the operation and variables, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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