get_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature (historical, sourced from status pages) and time range, but does not mention other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential delays in data freshness.

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, each with a clear purpose: first states the core function and time range, second adds source credibility. No redundant words, front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and data origin, which is sufficient for a simple query tool with only two parameters. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., fields of each incident) which would be helpful for an agent, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., examples for slug). It does not explain the impact of parameters on results.

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 tool retrieves historical incidents (outages, degradations) for AI tools, with a specific time range (last 90 days) and data source (26 provider status pages). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_tool_status' (current status) and pricing tools.

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 implies usage for historical incident data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tool_status' for current status. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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