Get Incident Statuses

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, establishing a safe, read-only profile. The description adds value by detailing pagination behavior (page and per_page parameters, response metadata) and the return of a JSON array. No contradictions with annotations.

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 contains five sentences, but the second sentence about fetching incident details is erroneous and unnecessary, adding confusion. The pagination and required parameter reminders could be merged. While not overly verbose, it lacks precision and conciseness ideal for a straightforward read tool.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality: status values, pagination, and required parameter. However, it includes a misleading sentence that detracts from completeness. It could clarify that it returns all available statuses for incident workflows, which is currently implied but not explicit.

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 each parameter already described (company_id, page, per_page). The description reiterates pagination control and required company_id but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence clearly states it returns status display labels and values for incidents. However, the second sentence 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier' is contradictory and misleading, as this endpoint retrieves status options, not incident details. This confusion lowers the clarity.

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 the tool should be used when needing status options for creating/updating incidents. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention sibling tools like list_incident_severity_levels or list_incident_filing_types for comparison. The use case is implied but not thoroughly explained.

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