list_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return structure, valid filter values, and limit behavior, which is helpful. However, it omits potential error conditions, authentication requirements, and pagination semantics, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 compact and well-organized with clear Args and Returns sections. The opening sentence front-loads the purpose, and every subsequent line contributes useful parameter or return-shape information without 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return structure comprehensively, and an output schema exists to formalize returns. The primary gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, so it is nearly complete but not fully self-contained.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, valid values (status: triggered/acknowledged/resolved; urgency: high/low), and limit's default/max. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 opening sentence 'List PagerDuty incidents with optional filters' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly conveying the tool's scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_incident (single incident) and get_my_incidents (personal incidents) through the generic 'List PagerDuty incidents' framing.

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 a general listing use case with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_my_incidents or get_incident, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage context is clear but not fully differentiated from sibling tools.

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