aries_incident_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses that only vetted incidents are returned, and describes the four action behaviors. It does not explicitly state read-only status but strongly implies it; adding rate limits or auth would improve but current 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?

The description is two sentences with front-loaded purpose and a crisp list of actions. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and is structured for quick scanning.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behaviors well (actions, vetted only, usage timing). It lacks details on return format or pagination (limit default), but schema handles some. Sufficient for a query 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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the 'action' enum values (recent, search, stats, get) and their behavior. This compensates for the undocumented enums.

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 clearly states the tool queries a trusted incident corpus to avoid repeating mistakes. It explicitly names the actions (recent, search, stats, get) and specifies the resource. While it doesn't contrast with sibling aries_incident_report, the purpose is specific and clear.

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 provides explicit guidance to 'call this BEFORE non-trivial Alkanes/Subfrost work' and clarifies it returns only operator-vetted incidents, excluding pending submissions. It does not mention alternatives, but the context is strong.

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