get-incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation and implies no side effects, but no details are given about error handling, return format, or authentication. This is acceptable for a simple getter but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it answers the core question of what the tool does instantly.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and lookup method. It does not explicitly mention the return value, but 'get' strongly implies it. The single-by-ID scope also subtly distinguishes it from get-incidents, providing enough context for correct use.

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?

The schema lists incident_id as a string with no description, and the overall schema coverage is 0%. The description's 'by its ID' provides the basic semantic meaning of the parameter, but it offers no additional format, constraints, or examples. This minimal compensation keeps it at the baseline.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'incident' and clearly limits scope to 'a single incident by its ID.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get-incidents, which retrieves multiple 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 phrase 'by its ID' implies the intended use case—retrieving a specific incident when the ID is known—but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated. The sibling get-incidents exists but is not mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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