get_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that with='events' expands the response to include timeline events, but it says nothing about error behavior (e.g., non-existent UID), response format, or side effects (though 'Get' implies read-only, it is not explicitly stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 long, with the primary purpose stated in the first sentence and the optional parameter behavior in the second. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word earns its place.

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 get tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the optional 'with' field. It does not explicitly mention the possibility of including 'check' (though the schema does), nor error handling or response details, but these are adequately covered by the schema and the tool's simplicity. The only minor gap is not mentioning the 'check' option, which is available via the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds a redundant explanation of the 'with' parameter (repeating the schema) but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 clearly specifies the action 'Get', the resource 'incident', and the identifier 'UID'. It distinguishes itself from list_incidents by stating 'single', and the scope is unambiguous. Even without comparing to siblings, an agent understands exactly what this tool does.

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 guidance on when to use the optional 'with' parameter to include events, which is a usage tip. However, it does not mention when to use this tool instead of other incident-related tools like list_incidents or diagnose_check. It lacks exclusions or alternative routing, but the core usage is clear enough for a single-fetch tool.

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