list_service_incidents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (list) and explains optional parameters, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. The read-only nature is implied but not stated, and pagination or limits are not mentioned.

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?

Two sentences: first states the core functionality, second gives a contextual example. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description covers the main parameters and use case. It lacks mention of defaults (slug default null implies all services) and common list features like pagination or ordering. Still, it is fairly complete for a simple filtered list operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining that slug filters to a specific service (or omit for all) and that status filters results (with examples). This provides meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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 lists incidents for a catalog service, with the ability to scope to a specific service via slug or list all services when omitted. It also mentions filtering by status. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_incidents' which lists all incidents without service filtering.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to list incidents for a service or across services. It includes an example question to guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_incidents'.

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