List Incident Form Field Selections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or what a "form field selection" represents, so there is no behavioral value beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication—no information is front-loaded because no information exists beyond the title. There is nothing for the agent to act on beyond the name.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool in a dense family of incident form-field and custom-field tools, the description fails to establish what a 'selection' is or how this differs from adjacent list tools, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 80%, with incident_id, page_size, page_number, and fields_incidents all documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies given the high coverage; only the bare 'include' parameter is undocumented anywhere.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The agent is left to infer the distinction between this tool and the neighboring get_incident_form_field_selection, list_incident_custom_field_selections, and list_form_field_options tools, which the description never mentions or disambiguates.

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