investigation_open

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

Since no annotations were provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. It successfully discloses that the system operates on a single instance ('one open at a time') and details the core behavior: 'Snapshots the project's environment memories.' This is crucial behavioral data.

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 definition is highly front-loaded, starting with a clear instruction ('WRITE') followed by the resource action. The subsequent sentences clearly expand on the use-case and side effects without unnecessary 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 the absence of annotations and the lack of structured parameter documentation, this description is exceptionally complete. It defines the constraint (one open at a time), the required inputs (title/symptom), and the nature of the secondary input (env).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must define everything. It gives specific meaning to each parameter, explaining that 'env' 'adds free-form setup text,' thereby clarifying the role of the three parameters beyond their technical types.

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 purpose is clearly stated: 'Open a debug investigation for the current project.' It identifies the resource and the action. While it doesn't explicitly list all siblings, framing it as an investigation distinguishes it from generic memory storage or list operations.

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 provides strong 'when to use' guidelines, stating it should be used 'before the first experiment when a task is debugging.' This clearly scopes the intended workflow and helps the AI distinguish it from other routine data logging calls.

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