list_incidents_by_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'list incidents assigned to an agent' without mentioning pagination, rate limits, or that it is a read operation. The optional parameters (limit, page_key) for pagination are not explained, leaving the agent unaware of how data is returned.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loads the purpose. However, it lacks structure for additional details, and the brevity results in under-specification of behavioral and parameter information.

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, no annotations, and 6 undocumented parameters, the description fails to cover pagination, optional parameters, or the behavior when no agent identifier is provided. The tool has many siblings, but the description does not help the agent differentiate beyond the basic filter. Significant gaps remain.

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 0%, yet the description only mentions id, email, and username, ignoring include_comments, limit, and page_key. It does not clarify that the agent identifiers are optional or how they relate (e.g., mutually exclusive). Thus, the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 the tool lists incidents assigned to an agent, with filtering by id, email, or username. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_incidents_by_asset or list_incidents_by_status, each filtering by a different entity.

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 listing incidents by agent via name/identifier, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., other list_incidents_by_* tools) nor provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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