wmata_incidents

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

The description complements the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying it returns current incidents without indicating side effects. It provides useful context about the types of incidents (rail delays, bus disruptions, elevator outages), but doesn't disclose details like pagination or response structure. Given the simple read-only nature, this 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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key categories. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple, read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what it returns (current incidents) and how to filter. It doesn't describe the response format, but this is not critical for such a straightforward retrieval endpoint.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with an enum listing 'rail', 'bus', and 'elevator', plus a description noting 'default: all'. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but the schema already fully explains the single optional parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') for a specific resource ('current WMATA service incidents') and enumerates the incident categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wmata_train_predictions and wmata_bus_predictions, which focus on arrivals/positions rather than incidents.

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 makes it clear that this tool retrieves current WMATA service incidents, covering rail, bus, and elevator/escalator issues. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-WMATA transit systems), the scope is unambiguous and the context suffices for correct selection.

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