Get incident settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: a workspace that has never saved settings receives defaults rather than an error or null, which tells the agent it can always expect a usable response. It does not discuss permissions or response shape, but the annotation already covers read-only semantics.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the content enumeration is front-loaded and the defaults caveat follows naturally. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it helpfully summarizes the settings categories. Combined with the readOnlyHint annotation and full parameter coverage, the definition is essentially complete; only explicit usage routing is absent.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (X-Orchestra-Account-Id) is fully documented in the schema, including its anyOf/null handling and API-key vs OAuth constraints. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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 states a specific verb+resource (get the workspace's incident settings) and enumerates exactly what those settings cover: whether incidents are on, which failures raise one, and how they alert. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_incident (a single incident) and update_incident_settings (the mutation counterpart).

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only nature of the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of update_incident_settings as the write alternative, and no stated prerequisites. The 'never saved gets the defaults' note is behavioral rather than routing guidance.

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