List Incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: return order ('newest first'), return shape ('monitor... and its event timeline'), and cross-organization scope. Minor omissions like pagination behavior exist, but the added context is solid for a read-only list tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core behavior and return shape, available filters, and scope caveat. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, with zero repetition of schema content and no fluff.

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?

With 8 documented optional params, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description covers everything critical: purpose, sort order, return contents (monitor and timeline), filter options, and org-wide scope. A brief note on pagination limits or default behavior would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only light value by grouping filters ('by status, by monitor, by environment or spec, and by time window'), which helps the agent see the filter categories but provides no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Specific verb ('list'), resource ('incidents'), and scope ('across the organization') are clearly stated, with additional detail on sort order ('newest first') and return content ('monitor that raised each one and its event timeline'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many list_* siblings (list_monitors, list_test_results, list_scan_runs) without needing to open the schema.

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?

'Works across the organization, no project context needed' gives clear context for when this tool applies — it can be called without project scoping, unlike many siblings. However, it does not name alternatives or state explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_test_results or list_monitors), so it stops short of a 5.

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