Get Status Filter Options

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safe read behavior. The description adds that it returns a JSON array and requires a project_id, but does not disclose other behavioral details like pagination or error handling. No contradiction 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 is three sentences but includes an incorrect and misleading statement (second sentence). It could be more concise by removing the erroneous sentence and focusing solely on the filter options functionality.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a basic explanation of the return type ('JSON array of available filter values for Incidents'). However, it lacks details on pagination, default values, or example usage, which would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'Required parameters: project_id', which is already in the schema. No additional semantic value is provided beyond what the schema already defines.

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 the tool returns available statuses for filtering incidents. However, the second sentence incorrectly claims this tool fetches full details of a specific incident by identifier, which contradicts the actual functionality and creates confusion.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The misleading second sentence about fetching incident details could lead an agent to misuse the tool. No sibling differentiation or usage context is given.

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