List Recycled Witness Statements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about pagination, filtering, and the API endpoint. It does not introduce new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply, but the additional details about pagination metadata are helpful.

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 concise, consisting of 4 sentences that front-load the purpose and then add key details (pagination, API endpoint, required parameters). Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 contains an apparent inconsistency: it first states 'Returns a list of Recycled Witness Statements' but later says 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Incidents.' This error undermines completeness. Additionally, no output schema exists, so the description should clarify the response structure, which it fails to do adequately.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters. The description only mentions project_id and briefly discusses page/per_page for pagination control. It adds minimal value beyond repeating schema content, so 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 clearly states the tool returns a list of Recycled Witness Statements for a given project or incident. It uses specific verbs ('returns a list') and resource ('Recycled Witness Statements'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_witness_statements' (non-recycled) and other list endpoints.

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 usage scenarios: enumerating incidents for paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering by query parameters. It notes required parameter project_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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