investigate_server

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'SAFE: read-only', which is a clear behavioral trait. It also explains that it connects to a server and checks specific JSON files. However, it does not detail what 'categorized findings' means or describe error handling, but for a read-only tool, this is mostly sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence conveys the action and specifics, the second adds a safety qualifier. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, actions, and safety. The only minor gap is that it does not explain the structure of 'categorized findings', but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 100% (the single parameter 'hostname' is documented with an example). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 action ('Connect', 'check', 'return'), the resource ('channel server'), and the specific items checked ('chirp, chmedic, chcheck, large_file_alert'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being comprehensive, covering multiple status JSONs, whereas siblings like check_channel_log or check_large_files are more specific.

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 implies a comprehensive health check but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus more targeted siblings. It lacks statements about when to choose this over alternatives, which reduces clarity for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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