incident_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully explains the semantic meaning of incidents (failed jobs, scripts, custom conditions) and implies a read-only operation via the 'List' verb, but does not address return format, pagination, or safety guarantees.

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 well-structured sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and contain no redundant information. Each sentence earns its place by conveying distinct information (action, filtering scope, and semantic definition).

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema required per rubric), the description adequately covers essential operational context. It sufficiently explains what the tool retrieves and the nature of the incidents without needing to elaborate on return values.

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?

With zero parameters defined in the input schema, the baseline score applies. The description mentions filtering dimensions (type, message, process definition, activity), which provides context for what the tool handles, even though the schema is empty.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List active incidents in the engine'), clearly distinguishing this from the sibling history_listIncidents tool by specifying 'active' incidents. It also clarifies what constitutes an incident (failed jobs, scripts, or custom conditions).

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 implicitly distinguishes this tool from historical querying by emphasizing 'active' incidents, and mentions filtering capabilities, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus incident_getById or incident_resolve.

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