create_investigation

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the 'durable' trait, implying the created question is persisted and can be retrieved later, which is useful context beyond the structured annotations. It does not disclose other behavioral details such as side effects, required permissions, or lifecycle behavior, but the bar is lower given the 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 a single, tight sentence with no filler words; 'durable' and 'diagnostic' both add meaningful context. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it sacrifices some completeness for brevity.

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 creation tool with several closely related siblings, the description is too thin. It lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, and while an output schema may exist, that does not compensate for missing information about when to create an investigation versus alternative tools.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it does not mention question, symptom, or parent_investigation_id. The phrase 'diagnostic question' hints at the main `question` parameter, yet the optional `symptom` and especially `parent_investigation_id` remain semantically unexplained.

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 names a specific action ('Create') and a clear resource ('a durable diagnostic question'), so an agent can tell this is an investigation-creation tool. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate itself from other create/record tools like record_hypothesis, but the resource is specific enough to be reasonably clear.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_investigations, get_investigation, or record_hypothesis. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about when this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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