incident_getById

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing return structure and fields (type, message, cause, root cause, process definition ID, activity ID), which it does. However, it lacks other behavioral details like error handling (e.g., 404 if ID not found), idempotency, or authentication requirements.

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 sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second documents return values. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description compensates for the missing output schema by listing return fields. However, given the schema defines zero parameters despite the 'by ID' reference, the description fails to fully resolve how to provide the ID (path vs. query vs. body), leaving a critical gap for 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 is empty (0 parameters), but the description mentions 'by ID,' implying the required parameter that the schema fails to define. This adds crucial semantic information. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides the minimal necessary hint about the ID requirement.

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 action (Retrieve), resource (incident), and scope (single by ID), which distinguishes it from siblings like incident_list or incident_count. However, it does not clarify whether this targets active vs. historical incidents (relevant given history_listIncidents exists).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as incident_list, history_listIncidents, or incident_resolve. The description only states what it does, not under what circumstances to invoke it.

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