get_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence and no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail.

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 the complexity (a retrieval tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, return values, or behavioral context, making it insufficient for effective tool use.

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 doesn't mention the 'incidentId' parameter at all, leaving it undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what the parameter represents or how to obtain it.

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 'Get an incident from Datadog' states the basic action (get) and resource (incident), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_incidents'. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves a single incident by ID or something broader.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_incidents'. The description implies it's for retrieving a specific incident, but it doesn't explicitly state this or mention prerequisites like needing an incident ID.

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