pagerduty_get_incident

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

No annotations are provided. The description only states it 'gets details', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (beyond the api_key parameter), rate limits, or what 'details' entails. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.

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 of 10 words. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context, such as the format or fields of the returned details. It does not mention any constraints or expected output, making it incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (api_key and incident_id) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details for a single PagerDuty incident by ID' specifies the verb (Get), resource (details for a single PagerDuty incident), and method (by ID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pagerduty_list_incidents (which lists multiple incidents) and pagerduty_create_incident.

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 alternatives. It does not mention contexts like needing full details versus a summary, or prerequisites such as having the incident ID.

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