Get incidents

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: masked snippets, only the latest published note per incident, and the cursor pagination contract. These are real behavioral details an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then pagination. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from structured fields unnecessarily.

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?

Covers purpose, filterability, what the payload contains, the latest-note caveat, pagination termination, and downstream consumption of the ids. With an output schema present, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns one extra point by mapping the returned next_cursor to the 'cursor' parameter, a relationship the schema alone only implies. The inline restatement of app/start date/state filters adds little beyond the schema.

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 ('Read incident evidence and timelines'), plus the diagnosis use case and optional filters. It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by noting it returns incident ids for draft_incident_update, which no other sibling does.

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?

'for diagnosis' establishes the primary context and 'Follow next_cursor for older pages' gives a concrete continuation rule. It stops short of naming when to prefer get_uptime or scan_app instead, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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