incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that actions exist but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens on create/update/delete. The lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state purpose and list actions/use cases. It has no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core verb (Manage) and resource (incidents).

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 complexity of 6 parameters including a nested object (config) and no output schema, the description is too high-level. It does not explain how actions interact with parameters, required fields for create, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the description merely lists action types without enriching parameter semantics.

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 manages Datadog incidents for incident response and lists specific actions (list, get, search, create, update, delete). It also provides use cases like incident management and on-call response. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other Datadog resources.

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 gives explicit use cases (incident management, on-call response, postmortems, tracking MTTR/MTTD), helping an agent understand when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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