investigation_add

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add an investigation entry' but does not specify whether creation or mutation occurs, what qualifies as 'open' vs 'append', or any side effects, permissions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap.

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 short (single sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure—no separation of overview from details, and no explication of parameters or behavior. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or behavior nuances like what happens when 'open' vs 'append'. The tool cannot be used accurately without external knowledge.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain any parameter's meaning or usage. The description mentions 'topic, title, content, tags' implicitly but provides no semantics beyond the schema property names. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies the action ('Add') and resource ('investigation entry'), and distinguishes between 'open' and 'append' modes. However, it lacks clarity on what 'ops investigation' means and how this differs from similar tools like 'journal_append', making it slightly less than 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 implies usage for adding entries to investigations, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., journal_append), nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use it. The context is implied but not explicit.

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