List incidents

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that filters are optional but does not explain how filters combine (AND vs OR), what the default result set is when no filters are provided, or whether results are paginated/sorted. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but 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 with no wasted words. The main action ('List incidents') is front-loaded, and the optional filters immediately follow, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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—three optional string parameters—and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is likely covered elsewhere. Still, the description omits filter-combination semantics and valid values, which an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly in non-trivial 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does connect each parameter to its role as a filter, which adds meaning beyond bare parameter names. However, it provides no allowed values, formats, or examples, and the 'or' wording leaves filter combination ambiguous.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('incidents') and explicitly names the three optional filter dimensions (status, severity, service). This is immediately distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like open_incident and update_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 gives clear context: use this tool to list incidents, optionally narrowing by filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as open_incident for retrieving a single incident, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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