investigate

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond that: Deputy can only list, read, and search files, returns compact answers with file:line evidence, and its output should be treated as leads. It does not cover latency, cost, or depth of investigation, but it meaningfully extends the annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary use case before adding the evidence caution and project_dir note. Every sentence contributes, though the final project_dir sentence is somewhat awkwardly appended rather than integrated. It is appropriately sized for an invocation guide.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description does explain the answer format as compact with file:line evidence. However, with five parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained for reliable invocation. It is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose but incomplete for tuning parameters like context, workdir, and thinking.

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% across five parameters, so the description must carry the burden of explaining them. It only explains project_dir as an absolute path to use if Deputy picked the wrong folder; context, workdir, question, and thinking are left undocumented. The most important parameter, question, is implied by the overall purpose but not given semantic guidance.

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 gives a specific use case: asking Deputy a question that requires extensive reading across files, with examples like locating handling logic, understanding a flow, or interpreting a large log. It clearly states what the tool returns, compact answers with file:line evidence. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as consult or review, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: questions that need a lot of reading, where something is handled, how a flow works, or what a large log says. It also warns that the answer should be treated as leads and cited lines should be read before acting. It does not name alternatives or when not to use it, so it is strong but not complete.

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