get_incident

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the auth scope required, that the delivery error text is never returned, that run events are matched by the recorded run_id so an empty run_id is a record fact rather than an anomaly, and that responses are wrapped with untrusted_fields that must be treated as data. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before trusting output.

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 dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the auth prerequisite and the core action, and every clause carries information (event types, edge-case interpretation, injection warning). It is long, but the length is driven by genuine behavioral disclosure rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: it enumerates timeline event kinds, explains the wrapper structure (data plus untrusted_fields), and covers the empty-run_id case. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining where the numeric id comes from. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get ONE incident) and enumerates exactly what the record contains — a timeline of run/alert/note/resolution events — which no sibling tool provides. An agent can distinguish it from list_incidents, list_open_incidents and get_run_history without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete usage frame: 'Use it to answer what was the run doing when it broke, did anyone get paged, and what has already been tried in one call,' which signals it is the aggregated single-incident view. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g. get_run_history) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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