get_investigation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the terms 'current' and 'projection', suggesting a snapshot view, but does not elaborate on behavior like behavior when ID is invalid or whether the projection is partial.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, saying exactly what it does without extraneous words.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks key context: it does not clarify what a 'projection' entails, nor does it provide usage guidance relative to the many sibling tools. It is not fully self-sufficient for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

The schema has one parameter, investigation_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly explain that this parameter is the identifier of the investigation to return, although the parameter name is self-explanatory. Since the description must compensate for zero schema coverage and does not, the score is low.

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 tool returns one investigation projection, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('investigation projection'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_investigations (which returns multiple) and create_investigation (which creates).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hypothesis or get_finding, nor are any exclusions or prerequisite conditions mentioned. The description only implies a simple fetch-by-ID operation.

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