query_incident_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Queries' implies a read-only operation and 'past incident tickets' conveys scope, but the description does not explicitly state that no tickets are modified, nor mention permissions, rate limits, or retention. It is adequate but not rich behavioral 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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it names the action, resource, and intended use cases immediately. There is no wasted text.

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 optional-parameter query with an output schema, the description supplies the core purpose. However, the unresolved semantics of status/target and the lack of explicit read-only confirmation leave gaps, making it a minimum-viable but not fully complete description.

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% and the description never addresses the three parameters. 'limit' is inferable from its name, but 'status' and especially 'target' are ambiguous—target of an incident, a host, or a service?—and no allowed values or examples are given.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Queries' and resource 'past incident tickets', then states concrete goals: recurring failures, historical context, and open issues. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_incident_ticket, which writes, and network diagnostic tools such as run_ping and resolve_dns.

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?

It gives clear use cases: identifying recurring failures, historical context, or open issues. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools performs incident-history lookup, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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