defender_list_incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: incidents span all Defender workloads (endpoint, identity, email, cloud apps), supports OData filtering with correct casing, and explains the 'redirected' status for merged incidents. This goes beyond the 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?

Description is reasonably concise, front-loaded with core purpose, then filters and usage. The examples are useful but slightly lengthy. Every sentence contributes, though some could be trimmed (e.g., 'A merged incident...' is somewhat niche). Overall, efficient.

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 list tool, it covers key use cases: overview of incidents, filtering options, and the edge case of merged incidents. It doesn't explicitly state return format (e.g., list of incident objects) but with no output schema, that is a minor gap. Given the simplicity, it is quite complete.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description reinforces the filter parameter with examples, and explains its purpose (refine instead of paging deep), but the schema already documents each parameter. Thus, the description adds some value but not a lot beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists incidents from Microsoft Defender XDR, explains the grouping of alerts into incident stories, and includes specific filtering examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like defender_get_incident (which fetches a single incident) by the use of 'list' and the mention of finding incidents before drilling into one.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'Use it to find incidents before drilling into one.' This implies alternatives for drilling (e.g., defender_get_incident). However, it doesn't explicitly mention any exclusions or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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