get_cloud_incidents

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds value by specifying that only 'active' incidents are checked and mentions target platforms (AWS, Google Cloud, Azure), which aligns with the schema's enum and adds context beyond the annotations.

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 just two sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and scope, and the second provides exclusions. Every word is essential, and the structure front-loads the primary function, making it efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and alternatives. It mentions the three main cloud platforms. However, it does not hint at the pagination parameter (pageToken) or filter format, though those are well-documented in the schema. Given the overall complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters; it only mentions platforms broadly, but the schema already provides detailed enum values and filter examples. No parameter-specific elaboration is given, so the score remains at baseline.

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 starts with 'Use this when the user wants to check for active cloud platform outages...' which clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'incidents'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly telling what NOT to use it for (cost anomalies or support tickets), leaving no ambiguity.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('check for active outages') and when-not-to-guidance with named alternative tools ('use get_anomalies or list_tickets'). This makes it easy for an AI to decide between this and closely related tools.

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