get_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It describes the type of data (real failures and self-reported incidents), severity, evidence, vendor-response status, and filters. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only fetch, the disclosure is adequate.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and content, second lists filter options, third provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data content, filter parameters, and usage expectations. It hints at return fields (severity, evidence, vendor-response status). Missing explicit return type but sufficient for a fetch tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the nature of the incidents and the context of filters (e.g., 'published incidents'). It does not repeat schema text verbatim, enhancing understanding.

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 uses specific verbs ('Fetch published incidents') and a clear resource ('Hlido's NTSB-style failure registry'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on comparisons, explanations, or recommendations. It uniquely describes the content (real observed failures and self-reported process 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?

Explicitly advises using this tool before delegating to an agent to check for known failures, and clarifies that an empty list means no published incidents, not a guarantee of reliability. This provides clear when-to-use context and manages expectations.

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