investigate_interviewer_anomaly

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

The description explicitly states the tool is 'read-only', which is an important behavioral disclosure since no annotations are provided. However, it does not clarify what the evidence output looks like, whether any data is sensitive, or what limitations exist around 'available action logs'.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and names the key data sources. It is easy to parse and contains no filler, though it could have used the space to clarify parameters or output.

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 annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says evidence is gathered. It does not describe return values, how the required issue_description is used, or what makes this distinct from other interviewer-focused tools. This is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool.

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%, and the description adds little meaning to the parameters. 'Interviewer anomaly' hints at interviewer_id and issue_description, but from_utc, to_utc, and profile remain unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on formats, optionality, or how they affect the investigation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gather') and a clear object ('read-only evidence around an interviewer anomaly'), and names the data sources involved (interviews, assignments, action logs). This gives the tool a distinct investigative purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_interviewer_actions_log or summarize_interviewer_activity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'around an interviewer anomaly' implies a use case, but it does not state when not to use it or point to any sibling tool that might be more appropriate for narrower questions.

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