get_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully describes the return contents (signals with observed vs usual, top error groups, timeline), but does not state read-only behavior, permission requirements, failure modes, or whether the result is paginated.

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 front-loaded sentence listing exactly the key return categories. There is no filler, and the most important scoping fact—one incident—comes first.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents. However, it omits parameter sourcing and behavioral details, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 50%: project_id is documented in the schema, but incident_id has no description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, such as incident_id format or where to obtain it via list_incidents, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states it returns full detail for a single incident, including why it fired, error groups, and timeline. This distinguishes it from list_incidents, which covers multiple incidents, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 the tool is for inspecting one incident in depth, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_incidents or other sibling tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints.

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