incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes comments, artifacts, metadata, rule, and assignee, which is useful, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, require no special permissions, or describe pagination behavior or potential side effects.

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 not concise: it includes a long list of variable names that are already present in the schema, adding noise. The first sentence is clear, but the rest is a cluttered dump with an incomplete example.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (35 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to specify an id vs ticket number via 'by', how pagination works with after/first variables, or what the return shape looks like. The truncated example only partially compensates.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists variable names and provides an example, but does not explain the key 'by' parameter or the meaning of the numerous nested filters and orders. The example is truncated, reducing its value.

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 'Fetch a single incident by id or ticket number', specifying a verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'incidents' which likely list multiple incidents.

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 implies usage when a single incident is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools such as 'incidents' exist but no comparison is made.

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