List Incident Action Types

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the return format (paginated JSON array), pagination control via page and per_page, and presence of pagination metadata. No contradictions.

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 plus API reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has 7 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, required parameters, and filter capability. It is sufficiently complete for a list tool with rich structured metadata.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for each of 7 parameters. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'Use page and per_page to control pagination', notes required param). Baseline 3, slight improvement.

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 it returns a list of Incident Action Types for a company, with pagination and filtering. It uses specific verb 'Return a list' and resource 'Incident Action Types'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like show_incident_action_type, but the purpose is clear.

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 says 'Use this to enumerate Incidents when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' This gives clear context for when to use. It also notes the required parameter company_id. It does not exclude alternatives but guides usage well.

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