investigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is "bounded" and follows a "plan→collect→verify→refine" cycle, but it omits critical behaviors such as whether it requires consent, whether it performs network requests, what side effects occur, and how verification works. The description offers only a high-level workflow without the transparency expected for an unannotated 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 short—a single phrase—but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The arrow notation "plan→collect→verify→refine" is compact but cryptic and does not earn its place for a tool with 13 parameters. Every word is meaningful, yet the content is so minimal that structure adds little value.

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 is complex (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a potential orchestrator role), but the description provides almost no context about inputs, outputs, workflow depth, consent requirements, or relationship to sibling tools. This is severely incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 13 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any specific parameter—it only hints at "bounded" and "verify" phases, which loosely map to max_rounds and verify but are never explicitly tied to the schema. With no parameter information in either schema or description, this dimension fails to provide meaning beyond the raw field names.

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 a specific verb chain—"plan→collect→verify→refine"—and identifies the resource as "investigation over all Harrier tools." This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which appear to be single-purpose utilities. However, it does not explicitly state the outcome (e.g., a report) or the subject (e.g., a person), leaving some ambiguity.

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 phrase "over all Harrier tools" implies this is a broad orchestrator tool to be used when multiple investigation steps are required, rather than a single sibling tool. It does not provide explicit "use when" or "use alternative" guidance, nor does it mention exclusions such as cases where only a quick single lookup is needed.

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