sentinel_incident_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implied read-only), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, return values, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. While concise, it lacks necessary details for proper invocation.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('kwargs') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'kwargs' should contain (e.g., an incident ID or query parameters), leaving the parameter completely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get detailed information about a specific Sentinel incident', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'Sentinel incident', but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sentinel_incident_list' or explain what 'detailed information' entails. This is a basic but adequate statement of purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sentinel_incident_list' for listing incidents or specify prerequisites such as needing an incident ID. Without any usage context or exclusions, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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