List Incidents

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add query behavior — and it does, disclosing the newest-first ordering and the non-obvious default of hiding RESOLVED incidents, which an agent could otherwise get wrong. It says nothing about pagination or result volume, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the scope constraint and the default filter are front-loaded in the order an agent needs them. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety; with only two fully documented parameters, the description supplies the remaining needed context (ordering and default filtering). It is close to complete, though it omits any note on result-set size or paging behavior.

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 100% and both parameters carry defaults and descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by default only open (not RESOLVED)' largely restates include_resolved's schema description rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List incidents') plus two scope facts: ordering ('newest first') and the default filter ('only open (not RESOLVED)'). The plural 'list' form is inherently distinct from get_incident/resolve_incident, but no sibling is named, so it falls short of the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

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 default-filter sentence implies when the tool is appropriate (browsing open incidents) and hints that include_resolved is the escape hatch, but it never states when to reach for get_incident, list_monitors, or any other sibling, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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