list_investigations

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

The annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'bounded' and 'current' which hint at pagination and state filtering, but does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'projection' or how the list is scoped over time. This adds some value beyond annotations but leaves key behavior unspecified.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it is arguably too terse, leaving key terms like 'projections' and 'bounded' undefined.

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?

The tool has a paginated listing pattern with 'limit' and 'cursor', and an output schema exists. However, the description lacks context on what 'investigation projections' are, what 'current' refers to, and how pagination works. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool in a complex workflow.

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%: the description does not mention 'limit' or 'cursor' at all. The word 'bounded' implicitly references limiting but provides no explicit parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 identifies a listing operation for 'investigation projections', with a verb and resource. However, 'projections' is ambiguous, and no distinction is made from sibling tools like get_investigation or list_findings. The modifier 'current' adds some scope but not full clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention pagination behavior or what 'current' means in the context of an investigation workflow.

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