acronis_fetch_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never discloses that activities, detections, and response actions are excluded by default and only included via query flags, which materially changes what an agent gets back. With no output schema, this omission matters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or ambiguity. It is well formed, though its brevity leaves useful context unstated rather than being maximally informative.

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?

This is a nested-schema fetch with eight optional query parameters that control response composition, and there is no output schema. The description never explains those inclusion flags or the tenant/customer scoping requirement, so an agent must read the schema to avoid getting a stripped-down incident object.

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%, so every parameter (incident_id, customer_id, updated_since, with_activities, with_detections, with_incident_actions, etc.) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ("Gets") and resource ("details of one EDR security incident") and distinguishes the singular fetch from the sibling list tool acronis_fetch_incidents by emphasizing "one ... by ID." It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the singular/plural contrast makes the purpose 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 phrase "by ID" implies usage (you must already have an incident ID), which is a reasonable implicit signal. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus acronis_fetch_incidents or acronis_search, and no mention of what to do if the ID is unknown.

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