Concluir investigação

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states it will close the investigation and save knowledge, which are significant side effects. However, it does not disclose whether closing is irreversible, what happens to existing findings, or any prerequisites like permissions. It adds some context but lacks depth for a mutation-like operation.

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 extremely concise, with two short phrases in Portuguese. It front-loads the primary action ('fecha com causa raiz e classificação') and mentions the secondary action ('gravar knowledge'). The brevity is efficient, but it sacrifices essential parameter and behavior detail, making it borderline between efficient and 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 1 enum, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the optionality of parameters, the meaning of the classification values, or what the tool returns or how knowledge saving works. An agent would lack critical information to invoke this tool correctly and understand its side effects, despite the brief guidance.

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. It mentions 'causa raiz e classificação' which maps to root_cause and classification, but omits hypothesis and investigation_id entirely. It also does not explain the classification enum values or that only investigation_id is required. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly fill parameters without looking at the schema.

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's purpose: to conclude an investigation with a root cause and classification, and then save knowledge. The verb 'fecha' (close) with 'causa raiz e classificação' specifies the action and resource. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like investigate_open and investigate_add_finding by focusing on the conclusion phase.

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 implies usage is when an investigation is complete and needs to be closed with findings and knowledge saved. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives such as investigate_add_finding for intermediate steps. No clear guidance on selecting this over sibling tools, but the context is inferable.

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