get_security_incident

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds 'full details,' which suggests comprehensive return data, but does not disclose specifics like response format, permissions, or any constraints beyond the lookup. It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited behavioral context beyond what structured data provides.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers its purpose and identifier use, but does not detail the return structure, which might be expected given the absence of an output schema. However, 'full details' adequately signals comprehensive data, and the annotations plus clear naming complete the picture sufficiently for a get-by-ID tool.

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% and the parameter description already explains 'Security incident number (SIR...) or sys_id'. The description's 'by number or sys_id' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. There is no extra detail on formats, examples, or edge cases, so the description does not compensate beyond 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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('security incident'), and the lookup mechanism ('by number or sys_id'). It is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_security_incidents (listing) and update_security_incident (mutation), as well as get_incident (generic 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving a specific security incident via its number or sys_id, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_incident instead of this tool. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use, but explicit guidance is absent.

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