get_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful content disclosure — that internal updates are included in the timeline — which is worth flagging, but it says nothing about permissions, pagination of the timeline, or behavior on a missing/inaccessible incident.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the return payload into one line with no filler. Slightly dense and parenthetical, but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by listing the incident fields and the timeline/failed-checks context. It falls short only on timeline size/pagination and access constraints, which an agent would need for edge cases.

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 100%, including helpful notes on project/workspace defaults, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., whether internal updates require extra permissions), so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get an incident") and enumerates the returned payload: number, root cause, postmortem, update timeline, failed checks. It is clearly distinguishable from list_incidents, create_incident, and update_incident, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over list_incidents for a single record or what preconditions (valid id, accessible workspace/project) apply.

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