list_recent_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' weakly implies a read, but nothing states side effects, ordering, recency window, or pagination, and the term 'synthetic' is ambiguous about whether the data is real or mock.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action and object front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized for the tool, though brevity is partly achieved by omitting necessary detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations, an undocumented parameter, an undefined recency window, and no differentiation from get_slo_report, the description is only minimally adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the single 'limit' parameter (default 10) has no documentation anywhere. The description's 'recent' hints at a recency bound but never defines it or explains how limit interacts with it, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('List recent ... reports and failure evidence') makes the operation clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the close sibling get_slo_report, and the qualifier 'synthetic' is left unexplained, so the agent cannot tell which of the two SLO-oriented tools to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_slo_report or get_fleet_status. The agent gets no signal about which sibling surfaces SLO breaches versus which surfaces fleet or cost data.

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