get_investigation

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context with the word 'projection,' suggesting a derived or partial view, but does not explain what the projection contains or what happens when no matching investigation exists.

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 redundant restatement. It front-loads the primary operation and resource, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read-by-identifier tool.

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 output schema, the single required parameter, and the read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the undefined meaning of 'current projection,' which could confuse an agent selecting among the many related get_* and investigation 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%, and the description does not mention investigation_id at all. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify the expected format, semantics of 'current projection,' or how the ID selects the returned 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 says 'Return one current investigation projection,' which clearly identifies a get/read operation on a single investigation resource and distinguishes it from list_investigations and create_investigation. The word 'current' is slightly ambiguous and the description does not explicitly mention lookup by investigation_id, but the tool name and schema parameter make the intent 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_investigations or get_run. The description does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or sequencing hints, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and parameter.

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