mission.list_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is read-only, requires the mission.list_incidents scope, and every call is governed by Arbiter policy and produces a ProofLink cryptographic receipt. This goes beyond a bare listing, though it omits details about return format or pagination 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 compact, with the first sentence describing purpose and scope and the second covering authorization and compliance. It is front-loaded and mostly concise, though the governance language in the second sentence is slightly verbose.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, read-only guarantee, scope requirement, and receipt. However, it does not describe the response shape or fields, which could be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Both parameters (limit and since) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. The schema already explains defaults, maximums, and the ISO 8601 format.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'list recent autonomous IT incidents' with a read-only scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_incident_details by noting it is an alias for list_recent_incidents and specifying the audit/operations review context.

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 provides clear context for when to use it (audit and operations review) and notes the read-only nature and required scope. It also mentions the alias relationship with list_recent_incidents, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives for related tasks beyond the alias.

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