Get Shift Incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing about scope limits — critically, it never says that shift-scoped filtering is not possible (tags and schedule_ids are deprecated no-ops) and that results always cover every incident in the range, which is exactly the behavioral fact an agent needs here.

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 the first sentence, followed by a short bulleted use-case list and a one-line return summary. No filler, though the bullet list is somewhat padded relative to the amount of unique information it conveys.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value sentence is supplementary rather than necessary, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is the operational caveat that shift-based filtering is unavailable despite the name and title, plus any pointer to sibling tools for narrower searches or handoff metrics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the two required ISO-8601 time params are fully documented in the schema, as are the deprecated tags/schedule_ids and the status/severity filters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — get incidents/alerts within a time window — which an agent can distinguish from list_incidents or search_incidents. However, the framing 'during a specific shift' overpromises: the schema has no shift identifier, and schedule_ids is explicitly deprecated and ignored, so only a raw time range is actually supported.

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 'Useful for' bullets give plausible scenarios (handoff summaries, debriefs, workload analysis), which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance: siblings like search_incidents, list_incidents, get_oncall_handoff_summary and get_oncall_shift_metrics are never mentioned, and no conditions for choosing among them are given.

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