Investigate Change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds context about combining multiple operations into one response, which is useful. It does not disclose any side effects beyond that, but given the annotations, the bar is met. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly concise, but the use of a multi-line Args block with plain text is somewhat verbose. The core description is front-loaded with a clear one-liner, and the extra detail on parameters is structured. It earns the score for efficiency without waste, though formatting could be improved with bullet points.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity (combining multiple operations) and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains the combining behavior and parameter filtering. However, it does not mention edge cases like what happens for invalid change numbers or how autohold filtering works in detail, but given the output schema and annotations, completeness is adequate.

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 description provides brief parameter explanations: 'change' as the change number, 'job' as a substring filter, and 'tenant' defaulting from env. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds a bit of detail beyond the schema (e.g., substring matching and filtering behavior). It could provide more detail on parameter formats or defaults.

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 it is a one-call investigation tool that combines building, diagnosis, and autohold status into a single response. It explicitly names the combined functions (list_builds, diagnose_build(brief), autohold lookup) and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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?

It explains that the tool is designed for the common 'what's happening with this change?' workflow and replaces 3-4 separate tool calls, giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list direct alternatives within the description, though sibling tools imply alternatives.

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