List Incident Roles

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world safety profile, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful behavioral detail: one entry per defined role, metadata included, and user_id null for unassigned roles, plus the flattening behavior of the underlying JSON:API response.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return shape, and the use cases are compact. The implementation note is somewhat internal but still helps explain output shape, so the text is efficient overall.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains purpose, return meaning, and call context without needing to document every output field.

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%, and the single incident_id parameter already documents accepted formats. The description does not add syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: it lists role assignments for an incident, including examples like Commander and Scribe. It clearly distinguishes this focused role-listing operation from broader incident retrieval tools such as get_incident.

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?

It gives explicit usage examples, including answering 'who is the incident commander?' and listing roles for INC-4460. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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