get_investigation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the investigation is immutable and that the human review note is separate, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not cover authorization, rate limits, or retrieval failures.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place by specifying the read action, immutability, and the separate review note.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so return-value details are unnecessary. However, given the 0% schema description coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 undocumented investigation_id parameter. It does not explain the ID format, source, or whether the ID must come from list_investigations, leaving only the self-explanatory parameter name to guide the agent.

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, resource, and scope: reading an immutable saved investigation plus its separate human review note. It clearly distinguishes this from creating or listing investigations, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state retrieval by ID.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_investigations, investigate_change, or other related tools. The intended workflow, such as retrieving an investigation after listing or investigating, is left entirely implicit.

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