get_incident_scope_by_issue_number

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral characteristics, but it only defines the output concept. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how errors are handled for invalid or missing issue numbers, or whether the returned list can be empty. The description thus provides minimal transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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 three short sentences: purpose, parameter clarification, and output definition. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function, parameter meaning, and output type (list of assets and monitors). It lacks details on error behavior or edge cases, but it is fairly complete for the context.

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 description explains that issue_number is the unique identifier of the incident and provides an example (1234), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type. This is the only parameter, and the description compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it does not specify any value constraints.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'incident scope' and clarifies that scope means the list of assets and monitors. This makes the tool's function immediately understandable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_incident_by_issue_number that retrieve incident details rather than scope.

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 implies usage when the agent needs the assets and monitors tied to an incident using its unique issue number. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as get_incident_by_issue_number or mention when not to use this tool, so the guidance is only implicit.

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