Get incidents

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and 'Body fields: none', but provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result set size, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 only four short clauses: the action, the endpoint, a body-fields note, and a reference link. Every part is functional and the core information is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With one optional query parameter, a detailed schema, and strong annotations, the description is borderline adequate. However, it does not explicitly state that this returns a list of incidents, what the response format is (no output schema exists), or that filtering is available via query parameters. The reference link is useful, but the description alone lacks the explicit list semantics that would fully complete the picture.

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 input schema fully documents the 'query' parameter, including accepted names, array comma-joining, and explicit pagination via offset/limit. The description adds only 'Body fields: none', which concerns the request body rather than the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('incidents'), and provides the exact endpoint 'GET /api/xm/1/incidents'. The plural form implies a list operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like xmatters_get_an_incident and xmatters_get_an_incident_by_identifier, though it does not explicitly say 'list' or mention filtering.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_an_incident or get_events. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the endpoint and sibling names.

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