okta_get_user_incident_summary

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has performance impacts (aggregating multiple sources), rate limits, or data freshness. The verb 'Gather' suggests reading, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single concise sentence, but it omits essential details about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified. It is more sparse than concise.

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 the tool's complexity (aggregating multiple data sources) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return structure, pagination, or limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (userId, since, until, logLimit). The agent has no guidance on how to use them, especially since/until for time range or logLimit for event count.

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?

Description clearly states it gathers a support-focused incident summary for a user, listing specific components (profile, groups, factors, sessions, app links, System Log events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve only one aspect.

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 'support-focused incident summary' implies usage for troubleshooting, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus retrieving individual components via siblings like okta_get_user or okta_list_system_logs.

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