list_recent_incidents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the chronological ordering, the exact fields returned, the required permission scope, and the always-on governance/receipt behavior. It stops short of discussing error conditions or rate limits, but the provided context is substantial.

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: the first states the purpose and return fields; the second covers scope and governance. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff or repetition.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (incident ID, timestamp, trigger type, etc.). It also includes the scope requirement and receipt behavior, making the tool's behavior reasonably complete. It could mention pagination or default limit, but the schema covers defaults.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (limit, since) with types and meanings. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline. It does not need to compensate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List', the resource 'recent autonomous IT remediation incidents', and the platform 'iTechSmart UAIO platform'. It also enumerates the return fields, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from siblings like mission.list_incidents or itsm_list_incidents.

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 mentions a required scope (incident:classify:read), but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also list incidents, such as mission.list_incidents or itsm_list_incidents. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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