get_incident

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects or constraints. It only implies a read operation but does not explicitly state idempotency, rate limits, or that it has no side effects. The absence of such details leaves room for uncertainty.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief introductory sentence followed by bullet points listing returned information and an Args section. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, an output schema exists), the description adequately covers the purpose and returned data. It does not need to detail return values since an output schema is present. Minor omission: no mention of error conditions or prerequisites.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description lists 'Args: project_id: Project ID, incident_id: Incident ID' but adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names, such as expected format or validation rules.

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 the tool's action: 'Get detailed information about a specific incident' and lists specific data included (timeline, affected apps, impact, resolution). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_application or get_project, which target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_application_rca or other incident-related tools. The description assumes the user knows when to retrieve incident details.

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