investigation_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'add an investigation entry (open or append)' without explaining what 'open' vs 'append' entails, whether it modifies existing data, or any side effects. Missing critical transparency for a mutation tool.

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 one sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks necessary detail about modes and parameters, making it incomplete rather than efficiently written.

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?

With 0% schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema. It does not explain the two modes, return values, or how inputs relate to behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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%, but the description does not elaborate on the parameters (topic, title, content, tags). It only vaguely refers to 'investigation entry', failing to add meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 the verb 'add' and the resource 'investigation entry', and specifies two modes ('open or append'). It is distinct from sibling tools like investigation_list or investigation_delete_note, though it could clarify what 'ops investigation' means.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., journal_append, kb_add). It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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