get_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' and 'history' imply a safe read, and the description usefully discloses what the records represent (down, recovered, status changes). However, nothing is said about ordering, time-range/retention limits, or pagination beyond the default cap in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the explanatory gloss immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema, the description covers the essential question of what the returned records mean, which matters since there is no output schema. It falls short only on ordering and pagination/retention behavior that an agent would need to interpret a truncated result set.

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 both uuid and limit documented including default and min/max bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., that limit truncates the most recent incidents) beyond what is already structured.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (status change history / incidents for a monitor), and the parenthetical clarifies what an 'incident' means here. It distinguishes itself from get_pings only implicitly — pings are raw checks, incidents are status transitions — but that contrast is never named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: call this when you need to know when a monitor went down or recovered. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_pings or get_monitor, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid monitor UUID from list_monitors.

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