list_incidents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two key behaviors: ordering (most recent first) and pagination (returns a bounded page, not the full table). However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication or permission requirements, or what happens when no results match. These gaps are notable but partially offset by the explicit pagination note.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose and ordering are stated first, followed by the pagination behavior. Every word earns its place, and it avoids repetition. It could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, but as-is it is efficient.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the filter parameters, the shape of the response (e.g., what fields are returned per incident), or error behavior. An agent calling this tool would likely need to inspect the schema further or infer from other tools to know how to filter correctly. The description is too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 17% (only the 'query' field has a description). The tool description clarifies that 'limit/offset' are used for pagination, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it provides no explanation for 'state', 'category', or 'assigned_to' filters, even though they likely serve as filtering criteria. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly but only touches two of the six parameters.

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 action ('List incidents') and the resource ('incidents'), and specifies the ordering ('most recent first'). It is distinct from other incident tools like create/update/get by number, though it does not name them explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_incident_by_number or resolve_incident. It only mentions pagination, implying it is for listing multiple incidents, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools.

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