sentinel_incident_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the results take. 'List' implies a read operation but lacks critical operational context.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 complexity of security incident listing (likely involving filtering, pagination, permissions), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, this description is completely inadequate. It provides only the most basic purpose statement without any operational or contextual details needed for effective tool use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single 'kwargs' parameter, and the tool description provides absolutely no information about what this parameter expects or how to use it. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of required inputs.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('security incidents in Microsoft Sentinel'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentinel_incident_get' which retrieves a single incident, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 like 'sentinel_incident_get' for single incidents or 'sentinel_logs_search' for broader data queries. There's no mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or comparison to similar list operations in the sibling set.

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