get_my_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return structure and indicates a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool but leaves some gaps.

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, with a clear 'Returns' section that adds value without filler. Every part 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description provides a complete output structure. Given the presence of an output schema, the description suffices for an agent to understand when and what it will return.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has no properties, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly states 'Get incidents assigned to the current user,' providing a specific verb and resource scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_incidents (which likely returns all incidents) and get_incident (a single 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 when to use it (when you need the current user's incidents) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or any exclusion criteria. It could benefit from noting that list_incidents covers all incidents.

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