list_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait—'without causal inference'—but omits read-only status, pagination behavior, return format, permissions, and any side-effect information.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, for a tool with six undocumented parameters, the extreme brevity leaves the definition feeling under-elaborated rather than optimally structured.

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 six parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It states a purpose and one behavioral constraint but leaves parameter meaning, usage guidance, and most behavioral details entirely unspecified.

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 description mentions none of the six parameters (db, page, start_ns, end_ns, session_id, trust_state). 'Bounded' may vaguely hint at time bounds, but no parameter semantics are actually conveyed.

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 pairs the verb 'List' with the resource 'incidents' and adds scope qualifiers 'bounded agent-declared' and 'without causal inference'. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose but does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as get_incident_report or get_incident_slice.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'agent-declared' hints at a category of incidents, but no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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