llm_investigate_all

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It briefly mentions 'inventory and bounded summaries' but does not explain behavioral aspects like performance impact, accuracy, or any side effects. Very limited transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly terse given the lack of parameter details and usage context. It could be expanded to provide more value without being verbose.

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 the complexity (3 parameters with no descriptions, output schema exists but return values are not explained, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It fails to cover what the tool returns or how to interpret results.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (capture_path, limit, max_protocols) are explained in the schema. The description does not add any parameter details, leaving their purpose and expected formats completely unclear.

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 the tool runs inventory and bounded summaries for top protocols, clearly indicating it analyzes protocols. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like llm_protocol_inventory or llm_protocol_summary, which could overlap. A 5 would require explicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like llm_investigate or llm_protocol_inventory. The description lacks any context or recommendations for selection.

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