getPagerDutyIncidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('fetches') and adds context about the scope (active on-call, across escalation policies). Though it could explicitly state side-effect-freeness or permissions, the verb 'fetches' strongly implies safe read behavior.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It is complete for a simple fetch operation, though it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of objects).

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and no additional meaning is needed.

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 ('fetches') and resource ('active on-call PagerDuty incidents and alerts') with clear scoping ('across all engineering escalation policies'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_incidents' and 'get_incident' which likely cover non-on-call incidents.

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 implies usage for active on-call incidents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_incidents' or 'get_incident'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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