list_incidents

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is accounted for. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are returned newest first, and open incidents are identifiable by closed_at=null. This is meaningful operational information for an agent interpreting the 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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then the ordering behavior, then the open-incident convention, so every sentence earns its place.

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 list operation, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, for which resource, in what order, and how open incidents are represented. Pagination or time-window details are not mentioned, but the limit parameter is already in the schema and annotations cover safety, so the gaps are minor.

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 documents all parameters with 100% coverage: id is a Monitor UUID and limit has a default of 50 and max of 200. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding extra semantic value.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('incidents'), and scopes it to a monitor, while clarifying that incidents are downtime events. It also notes that open incidents have closed_at=null, which helps distinguish from the sibling list_open_incidents, though it never explicitly names that alternative.

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 this is the general incident listing tool that includes both open and closed incidents, and it is clearly tied to a monitor context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_open_incidents or provide any exclusions or conditions, leaving the usage guidance largely inferable.

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