investigate_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'analyzes the codebase' but does not clarify what that entails (e.g., file reading, network calls), nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or output characteristics. This lack of detail hinders safe invocation.

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?

A single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's main action. It avoids unnecessary words but could be more structured to separate purpose, behavior, and output. Still concise for its length.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the agent receives (e.g., formatted output, code changes) and any runtime considerations. It only mentions 'explanations and fixes' vaguely. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is insufficient.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description merely restates the schema's purpose without adding new meaning or context (e.g., it does not explain how issue_id formats affect analysis or how codebase_path influences results). Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 tool investigates a Sentry issue by analyzing the codebase and providing explanations and fixes. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and hints at its purpose relative to sibling tools like analyze_stack_trace or get_sentry_issues, though it could more explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_stack_trace or get_sentry_issues. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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