Get Incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return payload: 'Complete incident details including description, work notes, and all fields', which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 front-loads the core purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is brief and does not contain filler. Overall, it is well-structured and no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description sufficiently states the return content and scope. It does not address error behavior (e.g., incident not found), but this is not a critical gap for a straightforward getter. The tool is adequately described.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters have detailed descriptions. The description's 'response_format: Output format' is less informative than the schema's explanation of markdown/json. The identifier example is already in the schema, so the description adds no new parameter semantics.

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 gets 'full details of a single ServiceNow incident by number (e.g., INC0012345) or sys_id', specifying both the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from list tools like servicenow_list_incidents and generic get_record by focusing on a single incident.

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 word 'single' implies this is for one incident, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives like servicenow_list_incidents for multiple incidents or servicenow_get_record for other tables. The context is implied by the naming and namespace, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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