swsd_list_incident_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field list, but that overlaps the existing output schema and says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result caps.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the alternative tool named second. Nothing repeated or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return fields is not required; the description still supplies it plus the sibling alternative. Remaining gaps (pagination/ordering semantics) are handled by the schema's page/per_page definitions, so completeness is only slightly short of ideal.

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%, including the non-obvious dual id/number auto-detection for incident_id and the page/per_page bounds, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (comments on a SWSD incident) and explicitly names the sibling mutating tool swsd_add_incident_comment, so the agent can distinguish read vs write without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent to swsd_add_incident_comment when the intent is to add rather than read, giving a clear when-not alternative. It does not, however, address when to prefer this call over other incident reads such as swsd_get_incident.

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