waroom_get_incident_action_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (retrieve) without disclosing behavior such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error cases (e.g., incident not found). This is minimal disclosure.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundancy or waste. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is a straightforward list operation with parameters hinting at pagination, the description is functionally complete. However, it could note that the result is a paginated list, but this is a minor gap. No output schema, but not necessary for a list tool.

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%: all three parameters (page, per_page, incident_uuid) are already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states 'retrieves a list of action items for a specific incident', providing a specific verb (取得/retrieves), resource (アクションアイテム一覧/list of action items), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like those for single action items or creating action items.

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 for getting action items but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The purpose is clear from the name and context, but no guidance is given for distinguishing from other list tools.

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