Get Linked Incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds the behavioral context of listing incidents (not modifying), and the blast radius usage, which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states the core function; second provides usage rationale. Perfectly 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?

Given simple input (single integer) and rich annotations, the description provides adequate context. Does not describe the return format, but without an output schema and for a list-returning tool, agents can infer structure. A brief mention of the expected return type would improve completeness.

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% for the single parameter 'problem_id' with a detailed description. The description adds value by suggesting where to obtain the ID ('from search_tickets or list_tickets'), which is not in 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get all incident tickets linked to a problem ticket'), identifies the resource (incident tickets linked to a problem), and distinguishes from siblings like list_tickets by specifying the problem-incident relationship.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is useful 'before resolving a problem' to 'gauge a problem's blast radius'. This provides clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the specific phrasing implies exclusive use for linked incidents.

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