lograft_investigate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the pipeline steps, redaction, and delegation to azmcp for live mode, but does not cover destructive actions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral traits disclosed are adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences long, with no superfluous information. The first sentence lists the pipeline steps, the second explains modes, and the third gives a recommendation. It is front-loaded with essential information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It states 'Returns a Bundle with paths to the written files,' which is basic. Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, two modes), it could provide more detail about the bundle contents or output structure.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the two mode parameters ('result' and 'live') and their sub-fields, making the combination clear. It also notes that KQL parsing is optional. While not every parameter is detailed, the description adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 runs the full investigation pipeline, listing specific steps (parse KQL, normalize, gather repo context, correlate, redact, render) and two modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself 'the tool most users want first.'

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 explains two usage modes: paste mode via the 'result' parameter and live mode via the 'live' parameter. It explicitly says 'Either pass result=... OR live=...' and recommends it as the first tool to try. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling tools.

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