get_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('get') and mentions 'full details', but does not disclose error handling (e.g., behavior when ID not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. The transparency is adequate but could be enhanced with more specifics.

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 sentence of 7 words, concise and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or wasted space.

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 retrieval tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core functionality and scope. Given the presence of an output schema, it need not detail return values. However, it could mention that the tool is for retrieving an existing incident, but that is implicit.

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 only parameter, incident_id, is a required string with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond 'ID'; it fails to specify format, example, or source. While the parameter name is descriptive, the description should provide additional context given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a single incident by ID with full details' clearly states the verb (get), resource (incident), and scope (single by ID, with full details). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_incidents (which retrieves multiple) and get_incident_timeline (which retrieves timeline only).

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 implies usage (when you need a specific incident by ID), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_incidents for multiple incidents or get_incident_timeline for timeline. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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