rea_investigate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return shape (markdown summary with evidence ids) and that the tool autonomously picks an inspection routine, but it says nothing about side effects of "opens the target" (does it launch/execute a binary?), cost or latency of the depth levels, or whether any state is written. Those gaps matter for a tool whose input is a local executable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the selection rule. The inline question example duplicates the schema's example, a small redundancy, but there is no padding.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the right work: it explains the return value (markdown plus evidence ids) and the first-contact positioning. Remaining gaps around side effects of opening a target and depth tradeoffs are the only things an agent might still need.

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 schema already documents target, question, and depth (including its enum and default). The description only reinforces the single-question framing; it adds no guidance on choosing quick vs standard vs deep in terms of cost or output depth, so it sits at the baseline.

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 specific verb and resource ("Investigate a target with one question") and then spells out the mechanism: opens the target, runs the appropriate REA inspection, returns a markdown summary with evidence ids. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rea_search, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

"Prefer this over manual rea_search for first contact" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not cover when to prefer rea_describe or rea_call instead, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete across the full sibling set.

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