get_incidents_since

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that incidents are 'created or updated' after the timestamp but does not disclose ordering, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a data retrieval tool.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and use case.

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?

The tool has a single required parameter and no output schema. The description provides the purpose and usage context but lacks details on return format, pagination, or any constraints. For a simple incremental sync tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to understand the output.

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 single parameter `since` has a description in the schema (ISO 8601 timestamp), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 verb (Get), resource (censorship incidents), and condition (after a timestamp). It also gives a concrete example question. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_active_incidents or get_incident_detail, though the incremental sync use case implies a distinction.

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 explicitly says 'Use for incremental data sync' and answers a specific question ('What new incidents happened since yesterday?'), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but this is sufficient for a simple polling tool.

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