list_incidents_by_cis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose, omitting details like required permissions, pagination, error behavior, or whether it is read-only. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the function name.

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, very concise sentence (12 words) that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous content. It is well front-loaded.

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's simplicity (list function, 3 params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or usage constraints, but the basic function is covered.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description partially compensates by indicating that 'cis_source_id' and 'ci_ids' are used for filtering. However, it does not explain the 'group' parameter or provide detailed semantics for any parameter.

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 requests linked to CIs, filtering by source ID and CI IDs. It distinguishes from siblings that filter by other criteria (e.g., agent, asset, status). However, 'requests' may differ from 'incidents' used in sibling tools, causing slight ambiguity.

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 alternatives like list_incidents_by_asset or list_requests_related_to_assets. The description implies a specific filtering scenario but does not exclude other tools.

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