investigation_list

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List', implying a read operation, but omits any details about pagination, ordering, rate limits, or what happens if the topic filter is invalid. This is insufficient 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 without redundancy, making it concise. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness. It is not overly verbose, but could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema and no description of return format or behaviors, the tool is incomplete. The agent receives no information about what the list contains (full objects, IDs, metadata) or any pagination/error handling. Given low complexity, this is a significant gap.

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 100% with one parameter documented as 'Filter by topic'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 'List investigations' identifies the action and resource, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'investigation_list_experiments'. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity to distinguish among list-type tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'investigation_get' or 'investigation_list_experiments'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate use.

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