resemble_run_investigation

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

The description discloses that the tool 'Consumes the SSE stream' and returns run_id, final verdict/intelligence, and a transcript excerpt. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for safety and side-effect disclosure, and it doesn't mention whether this is a long-running operation, whether it mutates state, or what happens if the SSE stream fails.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action. The first sentence states the purpose, and the following sentences add routing and behavioral details. It earns its place, though the parameter semantics gap means it could have used one more sentence to clarify check_urls.

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 description covers the main workflow, the source of agent_uuid, and the return values. However, with no annotations, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and an output schema present, the description should have explained the remaining parameters (especially check_urls) and any prerequisites or side effects. It's adequate for a simple call but incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description explains agent_uuid and query, and implies url/file_path usage, but it doesn't explain check_urls at all, nor does it clarify the relationship between url, file_path, and check_urls. With 5 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Run a Detect Agent investigation') and a clear resource (public media/page URL or local file), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by naming resemble_list_detect_agents as the source for agent_uuid. It could be slightly clearer about how it differs from resemble_create_detection, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer url', explains where agent_uuid comes from, and notes that query is optional. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus resemble_create_detection or resemble_get_investigation_run, but the context signals and sibling names make the intended workflow reasonably clear.

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