Listar investigações

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The description only states it lists investigations, but doesn't disclose details like pagination, ordering, or return format. It doesn't even state that it's a read-only 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 a single short sentence that front-loads the purpose with the 'INVESTIGATION:' prefix. There is no unnecessary verbosity. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't describe the output structure, any limitations, or whether it returns all investigations or paginated results. An agent would have to infer behavior from the name.

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 description mentions optional filtering by ticket or status, providing context that the two parameters are filters. However, it doesn't explain the enum values for status or the format for ticket_id. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 states a clear verb 'lista' (lists) and resource 'investigações' (investigations) with optional filters by ticket or status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like investigate_open or investigate_conclude, though the name itself suggests a general listing.

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 given. The description doesn't mention when to use this over other investigate_* tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The agent is left to infer appropriate use from the tool name alone.

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