Get incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what the caller will receive: subject, symptom, category, status, requester, and ownership fields. No behavioral contradictions with the annotations are present.

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 sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then lists the meaningful returned fields. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase 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 a simple one-parameter input, a full output schema available, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The return-field list is a useful supplement, and no critical behavior is missing.

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?

The schema already fully documents the sole parameter rec_id as an Ivanti incident RecId (GUID), with 100% coverage. The description merely repeats 'by RecId' and adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Load') with a clear resource ('full Ivanti incident') and the lookup key ('RecId'). It also lists the principal returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling mutation tools add_note and resolve_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 read-oriented verb 'Load' makes it clear this is the retrieval tool, especially alongside the sibling tools that modify or act on incidents. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the context and name strongly imply it is for reading incident details rather than taking action.

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