list_incidents_by_status

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (limit/offset), default ordering, response size, or whether the tool returns full incident details or summaries. Since no annotations are present, the description carries full burden for transparency and fails to provide key 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, which is concise. However, the phrasing 'List open incidents' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be more precise. The sentence is front-loaded but could be shorter without losing meaning. It is adequate but not exceptional in conciseness.

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 complexity of the tool (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not address pagination, default behavior, or how to choose between status_id and status_ids. An agent would lack necessary context to invoke the tool correctly, especially compared to richer sibling definitions.

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 schema has zero description coverage for its four parameters. The description explains the purpose of status_id and status_ids ('matching a status or several status IDs') but omits limit and offset entirely. It also does not clarify how status_id and status_ids interact (e.g., mutually exclusive, combined). The description adds minimal value beyond the raw 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 filtered by status, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource (incidents) and filter criterion (status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_incidents_by_agent or list_incidents_by_customer by focusing on status. However, the term 'open incidents' is ambiguous and may not align with the tool's name or schema.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing incidents (e.g., by agent, asset, helpdesk), the description does not help an agent decide between them. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool.

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