investigation_status

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

With no annotations, the leading "READ." is valuable — it explicitly declares the operation is non-mutating. It also discloses the compact/paged nature of the payload and that it should be re-read after compaction (implying possible staleness). However it says nothing about behavior when no investigation is open or when an unknown `id` is supplied (error vs. empty payload), which is the main undisclosed trait.

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?

Front-loads the operation type, then the returned contents, then the call triggers. Dense and waste-free, with no restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and one optional parameter keeps the surface small. What's missing for a state-reset tool is the failure/empty case and any note that the snapshot is a summary rather than the full log.

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 coverage is 0% — `id` is a bare nullable string with no description. The description's "(or `id`)" does add real meaning: default resolves to the currently open investigation, and `id` overrides that to fetch some other one. That is useful but doesn't say whether closed/archived investigations are addressable or what format the id takes.

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?

States a read of the open investigation's state and enumerates exactly what it returns (symptom, setup, ruled out, hypotheses, experiments, blocker, commands not to re-run). That enumeration separates it from investigation_log and checkpoint, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives two concrete trigger conditions: at the start of any debugging task and after every compaction. There is no statement of when not to use it and no named alternative (e.g. investigation_log or session_state), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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