investigate_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' restates that rather than adding to it. It does disclose that the call fans out across several data sources (incidents, CI graph, knowledge), which hints at possible latency, but says nothing about missing-incident behavior, result limits, or permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core identity ('One-call incident investigation') front-loaded and the return payload and rationale following. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its words enumerating the return payload, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide to call it. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., invalid or missing incident identifier) or any truncation behavior on the aggregated sections.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'number_or_sysid' accepts an INC number or sys_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the full burden.

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 and resource ('incident investigation') and then enumerates exactly what is aggregated: the incident, similar recent incidents, the affected CI with relationships, and related knowledge articles. This implicitly separates it from single-record siblings like get_incident, ml_similar_incidents, or get_cmdb_ci, which each return only one of those pieces.

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 'so the assistant does not have to chain several queries' tells the agent when this tool is preferable: whenever the agent would otherwise need multiple lookups for an incident. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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