swsd_list_incident_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating safe idempotent read. The description adds valuable context: it returns specific fields, and explains the incident_id parameter accepts both internal id and human-facing number with auto-detection, which goes beyond the schema description.

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 just two sentences, very concise. First sentence states purpose and return fields; second sentence gives usage guidelines and alternatives. No wasted words, well-structured with front-loaded info.

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 simple tool (one parameter, annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameter nuances, return fields, and usage guidelines. It even mentions the alternative inline view in swsd_get_incident, making it 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 has 100% description coverage, but the description adds extra meaning: it explains that incident_id accepts both internal id (>=7 digits) and human-facing number (<=6 digits) with auto-detection. This semantic nuance is not in the schema description.

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 tool lists sub-tasks on a SWSD incident, specifies returned fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools like swsd_create_incident_task and swsd_update_task_state. It also mentions that sub-tasks appear inline in swsd_get_incident with detail_level 'long'.

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 says to use swsd_create_incident_task for adding sub-tasks and swsd_update_task_state for marking complete. It also notes that sub-tasks can be viewed inline via swsd_get_incident, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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