swsd_list_incident_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds that results are paginated via 'page' and 'per_page' parameters, and lists return fields. No contradictions, but no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently references the sibling tool, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is a straightforward list operation with pagination, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, return fields, and related tool. An output schema exists, so return structure is further clarified. No gaps for agent invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, thus baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'List' on resource 'comments on a SWSD incident' and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'swsd_add_incident_comment' by mentioning it's for adding, not listing.

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 explicitly directs to use 'swsd_add_incident_comment' for adding comments, providing clear alternative guidance. However, it does not address when to choose this tool over other list tools, but given the explicit sibling reference, it is adequate.

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