List Incident Action Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that: no statement that results are scoped to one incident, no ordering, no pagination behavior, and no mention of what 'include' expands.

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?

Four words that duplicate the tool name; this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing of substance is present.

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 return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter tool with two closely related siblings, the description omits the incident scoping, pagination defaults, and the all-incidents alternative. It is not complete enough to guide correct selection or invocation.

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 80%, with incident_id, page_size, page_number, and fields_incidents documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The only gap, the bare 'include' parameter, is not compensated for by the description, which mentions no parameters whatsoever.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. The critical choice between this tool and list_all_incident_action_items (unscoped) is left entirely to inference, and no prerequisites, ordering, or pagination expectations are stated.

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