list_status_page_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions "paginated" but fails to disclose key behaviors such as authentication needs, rate limits, result ordering, or behavior on invalid page_id. This is minimal disclosure.

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 single-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters. It earns its place but could be more informative without adding much length.

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 tool has three parameters, pagination, and an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details and any information about the output structure, such as pagination metadata. A paginated list tool should cover these basics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It merely mentions pagination but does not describe page_id, page (0-indexed? default 0), or size (default 20). Parameter names are self-explanatory but the description adds no additional semantics.

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 explicitly states "List incidents on a status page (paginated)." It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (incidents on a status page), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_status_page_incident (single) and create/delete/update variants.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_incidents). Usage is only implied by the name and context of sibling tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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