get_incidents

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only conveys that the operation is a read ('Get'). It does not disclose whether returned incidents are open, resolved, or both; how the hours parameter shapes results beyond the schema; or any pagination or result-limit behavior.

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?

One seven-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler; it is efficient and scannable. However, the brevity stems from under-pecification rather than from distilling rich content, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

Adequate for a single-optional-paramter read tool: the schema covers hours, and 'recent incidents' names the return subject. But with no output schema and a crowded sibling set of alert/incident/error tools, the agent lacks the context to route correctly or anticipate the response shape.

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 already documents the sole paramter (hours: 'Number of hours to look back (default: 24)') at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's word 'recent' loosely aligns with the hours paramter but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('incidents'), and a platform ('New Relic'), making the core action unambiguous and matching the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from overlapping siblings like get_alert_violations or get_app_errors, which an agent could plausibly confuse with incidents.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided — there is no mention of when to prefer this over get_alert_violations, no exclusions, and no context on the distinction between an incident and a violation. An agent must guess which sibling fits its task from the name alone.

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