get_incident

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the two identifier formats (sys_id or INC number) and explains that the fields parameter restricts the returned attributes. This supplements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint by describing what the tool accepts and how it filters output.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and integrates both parameters meaningfully. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential inputs and their semantics. It does not discuss error cases or pagination, but given the output schema and readOnlyHint, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool 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?

Since the schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates by explaining that 'identifier' is a sys_id or INC number and that 'fields' limits the returned fields. This gives the agent enough semantic understanding to fill the parameters correctly, though it doesn't enumerate possible field values.

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 it retrieves a single incident by sys_id or INC number, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_incidents (list) and create/update/comment (mutation). The specific verb 'obtém' and resource 'incidente' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 fetching a specific incident by identifier but does not explicitly tell agents when to prefer this over list_incidents or other siblings. It lacks direct guidance on alternatives or exclusion conditions, so agents must infer from the singular nature of the operation.

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