get_incidents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'pagination support' but does not elaborate on key behaviors like automatic fetching via fetch_all, date range limits (90 days unless fetch_all is true), or the fact that it can return large volumes of data. The description lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or performance implications.

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 sentence that efficiently states the core purpose and highlights pagination support. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While more detail could be beneficial, the brevity avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly longer to cover key behavioral aspects without becoming overly long.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return format, how pagination works in practice, or how the tool relates to its many siblings. The description should provide context about the result structure, expected data volume, and usage patterns to fully equip an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only noting 'pagination support'. The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, including defaults, constraints, and the fetch_all behavior. The description does not enrich parameter understanding further.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'security incidents', establishing a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like get_closed_incidents or get_open_incidents, which also retrieve incidents with specific filters. The description could explicitly indicate that this tool retrieves all incidents (with optional status filters) to distinguish it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives (e.g., get_closed_incidents, get_open_incidents). It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred or should be avoided. Users are left to infer usage from the schema and sibling names.

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