get_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds little beyond stating 'full details' without specifying what that includes (e.g., work notes, attachments) or any response format. No additional behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or side effects are disclosed, so the description does not add significant value over 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the parameter options. No redundant or filler content; every word 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 simple one-parameter get tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent how to identify the incident and that full details are returned. However, 'full details' is slightly ambiguous regarding scope (e.g., does it include work notes, attachments?), so it is not a perfect 5.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description, but the description enhances it with a concrete example 'INC0012345' which clarifies the expected format. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's description, earning a score above the baseline.

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 'Get full details of an incident' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by specifying identification via number or sys_id. It is immediately clear this is the reference lookup tool for incidents, distinct from create_incident, update_incident, and generic get_record.

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: use this to retrieve full incident details when you have an incident number or sys_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools such as query_records or get_record. Context is present, but exclusions and alternates are absent.

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