list_investigations

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

Annotations already indicate it is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'lists open investigations' and pagination support. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise two-sentence description, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word is necessary and no fluff.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits what the return format is, how the locator filtering works, and the overall response structure. The schema covers details, but description should provide a complete overview.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds some value by explicitly mentioning pagination support, but does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action (list) and resource (open investigations), and mentions pagination support. While it distinguishes from siblings that list other resources (e.g., list_builds), it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools on the server.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_problems, list_muted_tests). No context about when it is appropriate to use or not use.

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