Show Incident Action Type

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns a JSON object and the endpoint. It does not discuss pagination or any side effects, which are already covered by 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 short (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, but overall it is efficient and includes necessary details like required parameters and endpoint.

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 simple tool and rich schema/annotations, the description provides adequate context (endpoint, required params, return type). However, it does not address why pagination parameters exist or potential confusion from the 'Incidents' wording, leaving minor gaps.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description explicitly mentions required parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and does not clarify the relevance of page/per_page for a single item fetch.

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 the specified Incident Action Type and fetches full details by identifier. However, there is a typo ('Incidents' instead of 'Incident Action Type') and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling show tools, though the purpose is evident.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'Use this to fetch...' but provides no context for exclusions or when not to use it, missing an opportunity to clarify its role among similar tools.

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