Get Incident Retrospective

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: it names the returned fields (title, content, status, owning incident) and the retrospective-progress signal that lets a caller tell a blank document from an unstarted one. It does not discuss permissions or error behavior for a nonexistent incident, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a one-line opener, with the motivating question and routing rationale following. The routing paragraph is longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter, read-only fetch with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this description supplies everything else needed: what is fetched, what comes back, how a blank result should be interpreted, and which sibling to use for the alternative task.

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% and the schema itself enumerates the accepted id formats (UUID, 4460, #4460, INC-4460), so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining that the incident id must be sourced from the incident's own relationship rather than from the retrospective route, which is a non-obvious constraint on how the parameter should be obtained.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource (fetch the written retrospective for one incident) and the framing question ('what did we learn from INC-4460') makes the scope unambiguous. It is cleanly distinguishable from siblings such as list_incident_post_mortems and get_incident_retrospective_step.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool for a single incident's retrospective, use list_incident_post_mortems to search across retrospectives. It also explains why the incident-scoped route is required (the document carries no back-reference and /post_mortems cannot be filtered by incident), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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