create_investigation

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description's word 'durable' adds persistence context. However, it does not disclose side effects such as parent/child relationships, workspace initialization requirements, or exact return behavior beyond what the output schema may imply.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with three input parameters and no usage guidance, the one-sentence description is incomplete. It omits optional parameter semantics and relationships between investigations, even though the output schema exists to cover return values.

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 names no parameters. It does not explain the meaning of question, symptom, or parent_investigation_id, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the raw property titles.

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 action (create) and the object (a durable diagnostic question), making the tool's purpose evident. It is distinguishable from sibling retrieval tools such as get_investigation and list_investigations, though it could more precisely define what an investigation contains.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like record_hypothesis, record_finding, or plan_experiment. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios mentioned.

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