Get Linked Incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: results are truncated to 200-character excerpts and get_ticket should be used for the full body — behavior an agent could not infer from the schema. Pagination/result limits are left unstated.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then use case, then the truncation caveat with the escape hatch. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does: a list of incident tickets with truncated descriptions. It is missing any statement about result ordering, pagination, or how many links are returned, which matters for a potentially unbounded list.

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% and the schema already explains that problem_id is the numeric id of a ticket of type "problem" and where to obtain it. The description only reinforces that the id identifies the problem whose incidents are listed, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — fetch incident tickets linked to a problem ticket — and grounds it in the Zendesk problem/incident relationship. It is clearly distinguishable from get_ticket (full description) and list_tickets (all tickets) by 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?

Gives a concrete usage context: "useful to gauge a problem's blast radius before resolving it." It also names an alternative (get_ticket) for the full description. No explicit when-not guidance or mention of siblings like search_tickets, but the intended scenario is clear.

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