list_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. 'List incidents' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't confirm safety or describe what data is returned. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'List incidents from ServiceNow', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy, earning full marks for brevity and clarity in structure.

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?

Given the complexity (6 sub-parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or output, leaving significant gaps. For a list operation with filtering capabilities, more context is needed to guide effective use, making this inadequate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. With 1 parameter (a nested object with 6 sub-parameters), the description should at least hint at filtering options or usage, but it does not.

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 'List incidents from ServiceNow' states the basic action (list) and resource (incidents) with the source (ServiceNow), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't distinguish this from other list tools like list_change_requests or list_articles, nor does it specify scope (e.g., all incidents, filtered). This is vague but not tautological, placing it at the minimum viable level.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like list_change_requests and list_articles, there's no indication of how incidents differ or when to prefer this tool. It also lacks prerequisites or context for usage, such as authentication or permissions, leaving the agent without direction.

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