List incidents

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral traits: result ordering (most severe first), the merged-parent/child nesting structure, and the important constraint that children are always returned with their parent so filtering still yields a complete incident. This goes well beyond the safety hint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the scope/ordering details and then the filter caveat. Efficient with no filler, though the second sentence is dense and slightly repetitive about filtering.

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 return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the key structural nuance (nesting and filter scope). All parameters are schema-documented; the only gap is that it doesn't tie the tool to specific sibling workflows or note pagination behavior.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented. The description merely restates the `name` substring-match semantics already in the schema and says nothing extra about status, severity, paging, or include_archived, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list incidents) plus scope (workspace the credential resolves to), ordering (most severe first), and merged-child nesting. This clearly distinguishes it from list_incident_events and get_incident, which operate on events and single incidents respectively.

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?

Gives clear usage context: filters apply to top-level incidents only, and `name` supports case-insensitive substring matching. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. get_incident, list_incident_events) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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