investigate_ecs_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'investigation' without revealing whether calls are read-only, what data is gathered, any side effects, or anything about the response size or structure.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being ineffective. It does not earn its place as a description because it provides minimal actionable information.

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 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the investigation covers, the role of each parameter, or how the output is structured, making it inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage for its 5 parameters, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of them. An agent gets no help in understanding what 'lookback_minutes' means or how 'include_logs' behaves.

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 'Run a complete ECS service investigation' starts with a verb and names a resource, but 'investigation' is too generic to convey the specific scope. It hints at comprehensiveness but doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like inspect_ecs_service_events or search_service_logs beyond a vague 'complete'.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description neither states appropriate contexts nor mentions alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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