investigate

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

With no annotations, the description details the three modes and their parameters but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or latency. It adequately explains behavior but lacks deeper context.

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 clear argument breakdowns and examples. It is concise (4 sentences plus list) and front-loaded with the purpose, though the 'Args:' block could be slightly more streamlined.

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 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all parameter behavior and action modes. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Minor gaps like error handling or default action behavior remain.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: action's three values, name with list of available investigations, params as JSON string, and element_id format. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 'Run an investigation or explain a finding,' specifying three distinct actions (run, explain, describe). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'describe' and 'query' by listing specific investigation names (e.g., stale_automations, deprecated_apis), making it precise.

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 provides guidelines for when to use each action (run requires name, explain requires element_id, describe takes optional name) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings like 'query' or 'audit'.

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