Get an incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context like 'Body fields: none' and 'No identifier query is generated', but the cryptic 'See C06' reference adds little value and no return or error behavior is disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but 'See C06' is an unexplained internal reference that does not help an agent. The reference URL and body-fields note are useful, but the cryptic reference reduces overall clarity.

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 read-by-ID operation, the description provides the path, parameter alternatives, and body expectation. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values, error cases, or pagination behavior, leaving some context for the agent to infer.

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?

The schema only defines incidentID as a string with minLength 1, so the description adds meaningful clarification that both UUID and incidentIdentifier are valid path alternatives and that no identifier query parameter is generated. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent construct the correct request.

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 the operation ('Get an incident') and the exact HTTP path with the incidentID path parameter. It distinguishes from the plural list tool by singular resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling xmatters_get_an_incident_by_identifier.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xmatters_get_incidents or xmatters_get_an_incident_by_identifier. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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