investigate_timeline

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description discloses that this is a 'trusted-local, non-production, non-live' simulation, explains severity is 'categorical policy metadata' not impact or confidence, and details INDETERMINATE and rejection semantics. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches them.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose, covering scope, semantics, and pitfalls. It is not redundant or bloated, and it leads with the core nature of the tool. The structure supports skimming for critical constraints.

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 the complexity and existing output schema, the description covers the necessary behavioral context: temporal window semantics, severity interpretation, INDETERMINATE categories, NO_DATA vs INDETERMINATE, and reservation/advice limitations. It is sufficiently thorough for safe and correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by clarifying frm/to as a half-open window, which is essential for correct use. Hostname is not explicitly discussed, but its role is implied by the tool name and its type is in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantics to the key temporal parameters.

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 states the tool is a 'read-only simulation' for investigating timelines, using a half-open [frm, to) window. It clearly distinguishes itself from 'point tools' (siblings) by the temporal evaluation scope. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicitly contrasts point tools with the windowed behavior of investigate_timeline, indicating when the tool is appropriate. The numerous 'do not' instructions (e.g., 'do not infer exact transition or root cause', 'do not make a reservation claim') provide critical usage guardrails.

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