Abrir investigação

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies creation ('abre') and mentions crossing WORK + QA, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words, and the key scoping ('Cruza WORK + QA') is front-loaded. The 'INVESTIGATION:' prefix is slightly redundant but does not hurt. It efficiently conveys purpose and a routing hint.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool actually creates, what the response looks like, or how parameters interact (e.g., whether ticket_id or bug_id must be present). It also does not distinguish from other investigate tools well enough.

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 hints that bug_id and ticket_id are used for linking, but does not explain title, hypothesis, or their formats/relationships. Parameter semantics are largely left to inference.

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 specific action ('abre uma investigação (RCA)') tied to a resource (ticket/bug) and clearly differentiates from siblings by mentioning the QA-oracle alternative for CI/Jira logs. It is not a tautology and provides concrete scope.

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?

It gives clear context: opening an RCA linked to ticket and/or bug, and even names an explicit alternative (qa-oracle) for CI/Jira logs. However, it does not mention exclusions or when not to use this tool relative to other investigate steps like investigate_add_finding or investigate_conclude, so it's not fully explicit.

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