history_listIncidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies scope (includes resolved incidents) and filtering capability, but omits pagination behavior, rate limits, and return structure details.

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?

Three efficient sentences front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: capability declaration, filter enumeration, and usage context. No redundant words or tautology.

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?

Adequate for a query tool with no annotations or output schema, covering primary functionality and filters. However, lacks details on response format, pagination, or specific distinction from the many sibling tools in this large API surface.

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?

Input schema is empty (0 params), earning baseline 4. The description adds significant value by enumerating specific filter dimensions (process instance, type, resolution state) not present in the schema structure.

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?

Clear verb 'Query' and resource 'historic incidents' with scope 'including resolved ones', distinguishing it from active incident tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool incident_list.

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?

Provides context with 'Use for post-incident analysis' but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over incident_list or other history tools, and includes no exclusion criteria.

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