pagerduty_get_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details', failing to state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the incident ID is invalid, or any rate limits. The schema implies an API key is needed, but this is not explicitly stated as a behavioral note.

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 is front-loaded and clear. However, it is very brief and could incorporate more helpful context without becoming verbose. It earns its place but is minimal.

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 read operation, the description adequately states what the tool does. However, without an output schema, it might benefit from mentioning the type of details returned. Given the high schema coverage and lack of output schema, it is marginally complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('PagerDuty API key' and 'Incident ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema; it merely restates 'by ID'.

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 ('Get details'), the resource ('single PagerDuty incident'), and the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pagerduty_list_incidents' (which returns multiple incidents) and mutation tools like 'pagerduty_resolve_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing an incident ID from list_incidents) or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like list_incidents and acknowledge_incident exist but no comparative context is given.

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