get_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type and content ('Dict: Full incident details including description, timeline, alerts'), and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention permissions, error handling, or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable yet not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear one-line summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence provides value, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the required input and the type of output. An output schema exists, so the exact return structure is covered there. The main gap is the lack of guidance on how this tool relates to more specific sibling tools (e.g., get_incident_timeline), but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 only provides the parameter name and type (string), with no description. The tool description adds essential semantics by explaining 'incident_id: PagerDuty incident ID' and providing a concrete example ('Q26N8MQQHA6R0P'), fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 detailed information about a specific incident' with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_incident_alerts or get_incident_timeline, but the mention of 'including description, timeline, alerts' positions it as the comprehensive variant.

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 phrase 'a specific incident' implies the user needs an incident ID, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives such as list_incidents for general queries.

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