vs_incidents_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. Minimal 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, earning its place by providing essential information.

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 simplicity of the tool (single ID parameter, read operation), the description adequately covers the return value context ('full check history and root-cause hints') which is critical since no output schema exists. It is complete for a basic fetch tool, though it could mention error handling or rate limits.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with its own description. The tool description adds context about the return value but does not enhance the parameter's meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'a single incident' with details 'full check history and root-cause hints'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vs_incidents_list which lists multiple 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?

The description implies usage when a single incident with detailed history is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like vs_incidents_list. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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