List Contributing Conditions

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds pagination details and required parameter. However, the contradiction about Incidents versus Contributing Conditions introduces confusion about the actual behavior, undermining transparency.

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 only a few sentences but includes a critical error (mentioning Incidents instead of Contributing Conditions). Inaccuracy undermines conciseness; every sentence should be correct.

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?

The description fails to explain what Contributing Conditions are or how they relate to Incidents. It does not cover the filter parameters (e.g., filters__active, filters__id) or the output structure beyond pagination. Given no output schema, more context is needed.

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%, so the description carries less burden. It does add that page and per_page control pagination and that company_id is required, but this is minimal beyond the schema. 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 description starts by stating it returns Contributing Conditions but then says to use it to enumerate Incidents and that it returns a paginated JSON array of Incidents. This contradiction muddles the tool's purpose, making it unclear whether it lists Contributing Conditions or 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?

It suggests using the tool to enumerate Incidents, but that is misleading given the tool's name and intended resource. It does not provide clear guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_contributing_behaviors or list_incidents.

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