list_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and that results may be past or active incidents. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, result shape, or any operational caveats, which leaves some behavioral transparency gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the filter capabilities are summarized compactly, and the sibling alternative is placed in a single actionable sentence.

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 read-only listing tool with 7 optional but fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains the org-level scope, filter categories, and alternative routing. It stops short of describing response format or pagination semantics, but those are partially inferable from the schema's cursor/size parameters.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds only general mapping ('filtered by check, state, or time range' corresponds to checkUid, state, and since/until), which is helpful but not substantial beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List incidents (past or active) for the org' with optional filters by check, state, or time range. It clearly differentiates itself from diagnose_check by explicitly naming the sibling and its intended use case.

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 clear context: use this for org-level incident listing with optional filters, and explicitly directs the user to diagnose_check 'for triaging a specific check's incidents in one call.' It lacks a broader when-not-to-use list, but the alternative guidance is concrete and useful.

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