get_alert_investigation_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool retrieves a report, returns markdown format and verdict, may return None if no report exists, and raises RuntimeError or ValueError for errors. This provides sufficient behavioral insight without contradictions.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, followed by detailed explanation, Args, Returns, Common use cases, Note, and Raises. It is front-loaded with the key purpose, concise, and every sentence adds value.

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's single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (markdown report and verdict) and error conditions. It covers common use cases and potential None result. However, it could be slightly more precise about alert_id format, but overall complete for agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter (alert_id) with 0% coverage. The description minimally describes it as 'The unique identifier of the alert' in Args. While adequate given only one parameter, it lacks additional context like format, examples, or validation rules that would aid agent usage.

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 'Get', the resource 'agentic auto-investigation report', and its association with an alert. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_alert' and 'purple_ai' by specifying the report's content (analysis findings, evidence, conclusions, verdict).

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?

The description includes a 'Common use cases' section listing explicit scenarios, such as reviewing the investigation summary or retrieving past reports. It also notes when the tool returns None (no report exists). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparisons to alternatives like 'get_alert' or 'purple_ai'.

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