search_investigations

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the 'open' filter, default values, and return type, but omits details on permissions, side effects, or pagination. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes directly to tool usage.

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 search tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core scope, parameters, and return format. It could mention pagination or tenant context, but the essentials are complete.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: 'region' is explained as the Taegis environment with a fallback to an environment variable, and 'limit' is defined as the maximum number of results. This enriches the schema's minimal default-value definitions.

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 tool's function: 'List and search open security investigations in Taegis.' The verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_alerts and search_events.

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 implies this tool is for investigation data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Usage context is clear but not contrasted with siblings.

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