Show Incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a JSON object, which is expected, and includes API endpoint details. It does not contradict annotations and adds moderate context but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence. It is 5 sentences, with some redundancy ('Returns a JSON object' and the required parameters statement). The API and endpoint info could be considered extra but do not overwhelm. Could be slightly more concise.

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 does not explain the response structure (no output schema provided) beyond 'JSON object describing the requested Incidents.' It also does not clarify when pagination parameters (page, per_page) are needed. For a simple get operation, it is functional but lacks depth that could help an agent understand the return format.

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 baseline is 3. The description only repeats that project_id and id are required (already in schema) and does not add any extra meaning for page or per_page. No improvement over schema descriptions.

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 that it returns a specific incident by identifier using the verb 'Returns' and resource 'Incident'. It is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_incidents' which lists multiple incidents, missing an opportunity for contrast.

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 to 'fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier', implying use when you have an ID. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., list_incidents) and no exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal.

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