errors.get_investigation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Recupera'), but fails to mention potential side effects (likely none), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The minimal description leaves significant gaps about the tool's behavior.

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 very concise (single sentence, 5 words in Portuguese). While brevity is positive, it lacks structure—no separate sections for purpose, parameters, or usage. The sentence is front-loaded with the verb, which is good, but overall it is under-specified.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at minimum clarify what 'detalhes da investigação' entails—i.e., the structure or content of the returned details. It does not, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding of what the tool provides.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'error_id' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on what the parameter represents, how to obtain it, or its format. This is a critical failure for a tool with a single required parameter.

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 action ('Recupera detalhes') and the resource ('investigação de um erro'). It implies a retrieval operation for error investigation details, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'errors.list' (listing errors) and 'errors.ingest' (ingesting errors). However, it could be more explicit about what 'investigation' means and how it differs from other error-related tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'errors.list' or other memory/graph tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling names.

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