get-incident

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'get detailed information', such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'detailed' entails. With annotations present, the description should still add value but fails to do so.

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 of 10 words, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read tool with 2 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what information is returned (e.g., full incident object) or that extractFields can reduce response size. With sibling tools like get-incidents and search-incidents, the context is sufficient but could be more complete.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (incidentId and extractFields). The tool description only mentions 'by ID', adding minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific Datadog incident by ID'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get-incidents (which lists incidents) and search-incidents (which searches), as it focuses on a single incident retrieved by ID.

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 that this tool should be used when you have an incident ID and need detailed information, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives like search-incidents for finding incidents by other criteria. The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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