list_incidents_by_helpdesk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list open incidents,' implying a read-only operation, but does not mention pagination, ordering, limits, authorization needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety cues.

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 sentence that is direct and to the point. No wasted words. Front-loads the core action and scope.

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 no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., entire incidents, IDs, summaries). It doesn't mention any default behavior like ordering, pagination, or whether all fields are included. For a list tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that parameters specify 'a help desk (or several help desk IDs),' providing context beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't elaborate on the exact role of helpdesk_id vs helpdesk_ids or any constraints.

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 'List open incidents in a help desk (or several help desk IDs).' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('incidents') with a distinguishing scope ('by helpdesk'), differentiating it from sibling tools like list_incidents_by_agent or list_incidents_by_status.

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 vs alternatives. Among siblings, there are many similar list_incidents_by_* tools, but the description doesn't explain why one would choose this over, say, list_incidents_by_customer or list_incidents_by_status.

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