get_incident_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the required permission scope, mentions governance via Arbiter constitutional policy, and notes that every call is sealed with a ProofLink cryptographic receipt. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or idempotency, but the key side effects and constraints are covered.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value: the list of returned data, the scope requirement, and the receipt behavior. No unnecessary filler.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably complete. It enumerates the specific data categories returned, the required permission, and a unique behavioral aspect (ProofLink sealing). This gives an agent sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the incident_id refers to ('a specific autonomous remediation incident') but does not provide additional format, validation, or usage syntax beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Fetch details') and clearly identifies the resource ('a specific autonomous remediation incident'), enumerating the exact content: ProofLink receipt, remediation actions, system state, time metrics, and NIST mappings. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_recent_incidents, itsm_get_incident_timeline, and prooflink.verify_receipt.

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 states a required scope ('incident:classify:read') and implies use when a specific incident ID is available, but it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this over alternatives like itsm_get_incident_timeline or mission.list_incidents. There is no exclusionary guidance, only implied context.

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