list_incidents_by_asset

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states it lists requests but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what data is returned, or any rate limits. Minimal behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is too concise and lacks necessary detail; minimal viable is appropriate.

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 lack of output schema, one simple parameter, and many similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not differentiate from siblings, and the inconsistency with 'incidents' vs 'requests' adds confusion.

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%. The parameter 'asset_id' has no description in the schema or the tool description. The description does not clarify what format or source the asset_id refers to.

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 says 'list the requests related to an asset' but the tool name refers to 'incidents', not 'requests'. There is a sibling tool 'list_requests_related_to_assets' which creates confusion. The verb 'list' is specific, but the resource is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other incident-listing siblings (e.g., list_incidents_by_agent, list_incidents_by_customer). No context on when this is the appropriate choice.

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