hostodo_get_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses the stub status, that it records demand, returns a structured coming_soon response, and warns against sending secrets. This is transparent and leaves no ambiguity about behavior.

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, covering purpose, stub status, and a security warning. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 stub tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what the tool intends to do, confirms it's not functional, and warns about secrets. It does not detail the return structure (no output schema), but the mention of a structured coming_soon response suffices given the context.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 states the tool is for getting service incidents and explicitly identifies it as a stub. This distinguishes it from the many other hostodo tools, none of which are incident-related.

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 warns that the tool does not perform the requested action yet and advises not to send secrets. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives; it implies it should only be used for demand recording but does not state that directly.

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