list_investigations

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds modest behavioral context by indicating results are bounded and current rather than all historical records, though it doesn't clarify pagination or what 'projections' means.

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 filler. Its brevity is a strength, though the cryptic modifier stack ('bounded current investigation projections') sacrifices clarity.

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 read-only list with an output schema and two parameters, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the entity and implies a limit requirement. It falls short on explaining what 'current projections' includes and how cursor pagination works, but those gaps are partially compensated by the output schema and annotations.

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, but it only hints at boundedness. It doesn't explain the cursor pagination mechanism or the meaning/range of limit beyond the schema's min/max.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and names the resource ('investigations'), so the core action is recognizable. However, 'bounded current investigation projections' is loaded with undefined jargon: neither 'current' nor 'projections' is explained, and the phrase doesn't differentiate this from get_investigation or create_investigation.

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 choose this tool over get_investigation or create_investigation. The word 'current' implies a temporal filter, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing, so an agent must guess.

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