Tower investigate

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description never mentions destructive actions, what data may be altered or lost, or open-world side effects. It adds the authentication requirement and states that evidence is untrusted, but for a destructive tool this omits the most important behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences are short, but the first is essentially a restatement of the name and the rest are procedural notes. It is not bloated, yet the space is not used to front-load purpose or key behavior.

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 destructive, open-world incident-investigation tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description is far too thin. It covers evidence-handling etiquette and approval separation but omits what the tool does, its destructive effects, and parameter meaning.

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 0% for the single required incident_id parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what incident_id identifies or its expected format, leaving the schema's bare string/minLength definition as the only source.

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 opening sentence 'Authenticated Control Tower investigate' largely restates the tool name/title and never states what the operation actually does—whether it starts an investigation, retrieves evidence, or performs analysis. The remaining notes concern evidence handling and approval routing, not the core verb+resource, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like tower.incident or tower.evidence.

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?

It indicates that human approval is handled separately via Tower HTTP/CLI, which is a useful exclusion, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over tower.incident, tower.evidence, or tower.detect. The only implied context is incident investigation from the incident_id parameter.

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