list_incidents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a detection pass runs by default, but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation or has side effects (e.g., modifying detection state). No information about permissions, rate limits, or whether resolved incidents are included by default is given.

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 two sentences, immediately stating purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits details like default filtering (open vs. all), ordering, pagination, or what incident fields are returned. For a simple tool, this may be adequate, but more context would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly describes 'detect_first' by stating it runs a detection pass by default, and 'include_resolved' by referencing optional resolved incidents. However, it does not explicitly name or explain the parameters, leaving some ambiguity about how they map to behavior.

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 states it lists open and optionally resolved incidents, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools since no other tool explicitly lists incidents. However, the phrasing 'Open (and optionally resolved) incidents' is slightly ambiguous about whether 'open' is part of the tool name or a filter.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of a default detection pass hints at configuration but does not compare to sibling tools like 'get_node' or 'explain_incident'.

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