Analyze evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's added value is the determinism claim, 'No LLM is used by the server', and the 'correlation is never presented as causation' constraint on the output — meaningful trust signals about how results should be interpreted. It still omits idempotency and behavior when evidence is thin or missing.

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 dense lead sentence that front-loads the verb and the full output contract, followed by two short clauses on determinism and causal discipline. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still frames what the analysis yields and its epistemic limits. The remaining gap is lifecycle placement — nothing states that evidence must be collected first or what happens if the investigation has none.

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 100%, with both parameters documented including the pattern and the note that investigationId comes from start_investigation, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about additionalContext's role in symptom matching, which the schema already covers anyway.

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 operation (deterministic analysis) on a specific resource (recorded evidence in an investigation) and enumerates the produced artifacts: observed facts, ranked root causes with supporting/contradicting evidence, confidence, reproduction status, and discriminating experiments. That output list effectively separates it from collect_evidence and generate_bug_report, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: the phrase 'recorded evidence' and the investigationId sourced from start_investigation suggest this runs after evidence collection. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement (e.g. requires at least one collect_evidence call), and no named alternative.

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