pagerduty_list_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List', implying a read operation, but does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, response structure, or any side effects. The addition of 'date range' is inaccurate as no such parameter exists in the schema.

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, which is concise, but it includes an inaccuracy (date range). While front-loaded with the core operation, the inaccuracy reduces its effectiveness. It could be improved with a clearer, error-free structure.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the response contains (list of incidents), how pagination works (despite limit/offset in schema), or that api_key is required. The inaccuracy on date range further undermines completeness.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds value by listing status values explicitly, but it also mentions a 'date range' filter that does not exist in the schema (no date parameters), causing confusion. It does not explain the purpose of 'limit' and 'offset' for pagination.

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 'List PagerDuty incidents' with a specific verb and resource. It lists available filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pagerduty_get_incident (single incident) or pagerduty_acknowledge_incident (action). However, it does not explicitly mention that no filters return all incidents, 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_incident for a single incident, resolve_incident for resolution). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, forcing the agent to infer usage from names alone.

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