incident_incidents__get_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the HTTP path and 'get details' - no note about what 'details' include or how it differs from the context endpoint.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the verb and resource first. There is mild redundancy between 'Get incident', the raw path, and 'Get details of a specific incident', but nothing is bloated.

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 single-resource read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the essentials are present. The gap is conceptual: it never clarifies the difference in payload depth between this and incident_full_context, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces.

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 100%, and both the incidentUuid reference and the fields projection parameter are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific incident') and echoes the REST path, so an agent can tell it fetches one incident by UUID. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like incident_full_context or list_incidents.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never says to prefer this over incident_full_context or list_incidents when only a UUID is known, leaving routing entirely to inference from the name.

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