defender_get_incident

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds beyond that by clarifying it returns the raw stored incident, mentioning redirectIncidentId when merged, and explicitly noting the tool does not traverse merge relationships. No contradiction with 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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the field list, then adds the two most important operational details—starting-point role and merge limitation—without filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and the one important caveat (merge behavior). No critical gap remains for correct invocation.

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 schema fully describes incident_id with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one incident as it is stored'), then enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from merge-following behavior, which helps separate it from siblings like defender_resolve_incident.

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?

It explicitly positions the tool as 'the starting point of incident analysis' and gives a concrete when-not-to-use condition: 'it does not follow merges', directing the agent to defender_resolve_incident instead. This is an explicit when/when-not/alternative pairing.

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