servicenow_list_my_incidents

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

No annotations are provided. The description only states that it lists incidents but does not disclose any behavioral details such as sorting order, pagination, or whether closed incidents are included. This is adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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 a single clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there is no output schema and no parameters, the description is mostly complete. It could mention if the list includes both open and closed incidents or provide ordering hints, but for a basic personal list, it is adequate.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Following the guidelines, the baseline is 4.

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 specific action (list) and resource (incidents) with a clear scope (assigned to or opened by you). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like servicenow_search_incidents which likely perform broader searches.

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 implicitly indicates when to use it (for personal incidents) vs. siblings (e.g., servicenow_search_incidents for broader search). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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