clm_list_incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that deleted incidents are excluded and that the scope is limited to a specific shipment, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the scope qualifier. No filler or redundant wording.

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 simple, read-only, idempotent list operation with one required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. The non-deleted behavior is explicitly disclosed, and return-value details are covered by the output schema.

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?

The only parameter, shipment_id, has a schema description ('The shipment's id.') and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra format or semantic details, but with full schema coverage 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 ('List'), a clear resource ('incidents/findings'), and the scope ('raised against a shipment'). It also adds the 'non-deleted' qualifier, which distinguishes it from a generic incident list and from the singular clm_get_incident sibling.

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 description clearly implies this tool is used when you need all incidents/findings for a given shipment, and the required shipment_id parameter reinforces that. It does not explicitly name alternatives like clm_get_incident, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route a 'list incidents for shipment' request correctly.

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