get_incident_endpoints

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

No annotations are present, and the description only says 'Retrieve', which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or side effects. For a read tool, the burden is lower, but minimal transparency is offered beyond the verb.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

While the tool name and schema hint at the data, the description lacks detail about the return format or structure of 'endpoints and contacts'. Given no output schema and no additional context, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand what the tool returns.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('endpoints and contacts for a specific security incident'). It differentiates from sibling tools like close_incident or get_incidents, but does not explicitly distinguish from similar retrieval tools like get_incident_context or get_incident_details, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites, limitations, or use-case hints. The description merely states the action without contextual or conditional advice.

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