get-incidents

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

No annotations provided. The description adds that the output includes severity, status, commander, and timeline, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or how parameters like query affect results. Partial transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It provides usage examples and output fields but fails to explain parameters or behavioral details, making it incomplete.

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%. The description adds no information about the parameters (pageSize, pageOffset, query, limit), failing to add meaning beyond the schema names.

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 'List Datadog incidents for incident management' and provides concrete use cases like 'show active incidents', 'what incidents happened this week', and 'find incidents related to payments'. It also lists included fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use it via example queries, but it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with the similar sibling 'search_incidents'. This is a minor gap.

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