incident_notifications_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and that delivery status is included, but it does not discuss pagination behavior, permissions, side effects, or edge cases. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.

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 communicates the subject, scope, and output detail efficiently, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 list operation with full schema coverage, the description plus input schema provide enough to invoke the tool correctly: the incident uid, optional limit, and optional status filter. It lacks explicit usage alternatives and has no output schema, but the description does state what the result covers.

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 100%, so the schema already documents uid, limit, and status. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('who was notified for a given incident'), and adds the result characteristic 'with delivery status.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_incidents or get_incident, which return incident data rather than notification recipients.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for a given incident, and the uid parameter description further clarifies that the uid comes from list_incidents or get_incident. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions.

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